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
>