Re: vacuum timings

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Conclusions:
>     o  drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes

BTW, I did some profiling of CREATE INDEX this evening (quite
unintentionally actually; I was interested in COPY IN, but the pg_dump
script I used as driver happened to create some indexes too).  I was
startled to discover that 60% of the runtime of CREATE INDEX is spent in
_bt_invokestrat (which is called from tuplesort.c's comparetup_index,
and exists only to figure out which specific comparison routine to call).
Of this, a whopping 4% was spent in the useful subroutine, int4gt.  All
the rest went into lookup and validation checks that by rights should be
done once per index creation, not once per comparison.

In short: a fairly straightforward bit of optimization will eliminate
circa 50% of the CPU time consumed by CREATE INDEX.  All we need is to
figure out where to cache the lookup results.  The optimization would
improve insertions and lookups in indexes, as well, if we can cache
the lookup results in those scenarios.

This was for a table small enough that tuplesort.c could do the sort
entirely in memory, so I'm sure the gains would be smaller for a large
table that requires a disk-based sort.  Still, it seems worth looking
into...
        regards, tom lane