Re: hash index improving v3

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I'm considering changing hashbuild to switch over at shared_buffers instead
>>> of effective_cache_size --- any thoughts about that?
>>
>> Switching to shared_buffers gets my vote, on my test table with
>> 50,000,000 rows it takes about 8 minutes to create an index using the
>> default effective_cache_size.  With effective_cache_size set to 6GB
>> (machine has 8GB) its still going an hour later.

> Agreed.  I think using shared_buffers as a cutoff is a much better idea as well.

Already done in CVS a week or so back, but thanks for following up with
some confirmation.

            regards, tom lane