X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BFD47659A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from postgresql.org ([64.49.215.8]) by localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8:10024]) (amavisd-new) with SMTP id 38856-08 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from sabre.velocet.net (sabre.velocet.net [216.138.209.205]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A12D476348 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from stark.dyndns.tv (H162.C233.tor.velocet.net [216.138.233.162]) by sabre.velocet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962841381AA; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.dyndns.tv ident=foobar) by stark.dyndns.tv with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18qJDH-0000i7-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:40:35 -0500 To: Oleg Bartunov Cc: Greg Stark , Achilleus Mantzios , pgsql-sql , Teodor Sigaev Subject: Re: Gist indexes on int arrays References: <87smu3kv7d.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> <87k7ffkr3o.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> <87znobj7u0.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> In-Reply-To: From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 04 Mar 2003 15:40:34 -0500 Message-ID: <87llzukgql.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Archive-Number: 200303/140 X-Sequence-Number: 12180 Oleg Bartunov writes: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Greg Stark wrote: > > > > > db=# CREATE INDEX cache_gist_idx on cache using gist ( foo_id , attribute_set gist__int_ops); > > > > There are 1,161,435 records, with 384 distinct values of foo_id. The number of > > records per value of foo_id ranges from 1 to 11,474. > > hmm, not so much. We might be interested to play with the data. > How big would be compressed archive of your data, so we could download > it and use as test data. The -Fc archive is 20M. But I have to get permission from the client. It's nearly 5h now. Surely something is wrong? postgres 30176 92.2 21.4 77124 55092 ? R 11:08 247:48 postgres: postgres slo [local] CREATE INDEX This is 7.3 btw, would I have better success with CVS? -- greg