Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=d=Owxp76c_hPDY5iDa0w-h8fsX3x2B_NTt0zgKKcv+ZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, the machine we called "ninefivealpha", which incidentally, failed to
> find a single bug in alpha2 thru beta2, is currently idle, and concurrent
> index creation times are a bugbear around these parts. Can somebody, either
> in this thread or privately, outline what sort of a test they'd like to see?

Any kind of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY test, before and after.

I looked at a simple, random int4 column. That seems like a good case
to focus on, since there isn't too much other overhead.  I think I
performed my test on an unlogged table, to make sure other overhead
was even further minimized.

--
Peter Geoghegan

What, if any, other load should be placed on the underlying table during the test?

I ask because CIC statements that run in seconds on our staging machine can take many hours on our production machine, when most of the access is just reads, though those reads may have been part of a larger transaction that did updates elsewhere.





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error with index on unlogged table
Next
From: "andres@anarazel.de"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches