On 09/25/2016 08:33 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 09/22/2016 07:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
... I've tried increasing the cache size to 768
entries, with vast majority of them (~600) allocated to leaf pages.
Sadly, this seems to only increase the CREATE INDEX duration a bit,
without making the index significantly smaller (still ~120MB).
Yeah, that's in line with my results: not much further gain from a
larger cache. Though if you were testing with the same IRRExplorer
data, it's not surprising that our results would match. Would be
good to try some other cases...
Agreed, but I don't have any other data sets at hand. One possibility would
be to generate something randomly (e.g. it's not particularly difficult to
generate random IP addresses), but I'd much rather use some real-world data
sets.
Tomas, I have one real dataset, which I used for testing spgist
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caf4au4zxd2xov0a__fu7xohxsiwjzm1z2xhs-ffat1dzb9u...@mail.gmail.com)
Let me know if you need it.
Sure, that would be useful.
I think it would be useful to make repository of such data sets, so that
patch authors & reviewers can get a reasonable collection of data sets
if needed, instead of scrambling every time. Opinions?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
