Hi: On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:32 PM, pinker <pinker@xxxxxxx> wrote: ... > create table t01 (id bigint); > create index i01 on t01(id); > insert into t01 SELECT s from generate_series(1,10000000) as s; > > and random values: > create table t02 (id bigint); > create index i02 on t02(id); > insert into t02 SELECT random()*100 from generate_series(1,10000000) as s; It's already been told that btrees work that way, if you find it strange read a bit about them, this is completely normal, but ... ... what I come to point is your test is severely flawed. It probably does not matter in this case, but you are inserting 10M DIFFERENT VALUES in the first case and only 100 in the second one, which an average of 100K DUPLICATES of each. This affects btrees too. You could try using random*1G, or at least 100M, for a better test ( which may have even worse behaviour, ideally I would just write 10M integers to a disk file, then shuffle it and compare COPY FROM times from both ) ( unless you know of an easy way to generate a random permutation on the fly without using a lot of memory, I do not ). Francisco Olarte. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
