Re: Index creation takes more time?
От | Craig Ringer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Index creation takes more time? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50569F6B.6000304@ringerc.id.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Index creation takes more time? (Herouth Maoz <herouth@unicell.co.il>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Herouth, I don't know if you saw Tomas Vondra's follow-up, as it was only to the list and not CC'd to you. Here's the archive link: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e87a2f7a91ce1fca7143bcadc4553a0b@fuzzy.cz The short version: "More information required". On 09/09/2012 05:25 PM, Herouth Maoz wrote: > We have tables which we archive and shorten every day. That is - the main table that has daily inserts and updates is keptsmall, and there is a parallel table with all the old data up to a year ago. > > In the past we noticed that the bulk transfer from the main table to the archive table takes a very long time, so we decidedto do this in three steps: (1) drop indexes on the archive table, (2) insert a week's worth of data into the archivetable. (3) recreate the indexes. This proved to take much less time than having each row update the index. > > However, this week we finally upgraded from PG 8.3 to 9.1, and suddenly, the archiving process takes a lot more time thanit used to - 14:30 hours for the most important table, to be exact, spent only on index creation. > > The same work running on the same data in 8.3 on a much weaker PC took merely 4:30 hours. > > There are 8 indexes on the archive table. > > The size of the main table is currently (after archive) 7,805,009 records. > The size of the archive table is currently 177,328,412 records. > > Has there been a major change in index creation that would cause 9.1 to do it this much slower? Should I go back to simplycopying over the data or is the whole concept breaking down? > > > TIA, > Herouth >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: