On Wednesday 17 March 2010 22:18:47 Hannu Krosing wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Andres Freund escribió: > > >> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in > > >> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an > > >> index is small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter > > >> much. > > > > > > Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one. > > > > That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was > > concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with > > doing them in succession. > > I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help > here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other > common file systems like ext3 ? ext4 should do that now by allocating the space for the files only after some time or uppon things like fsync (xfs does the same). ext3 has, as far as I know, neither the ability to change allocation size nor can do delayed allocation. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
