On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pg...@jamponi.net> wrote: >> >> UPDATE: I have been able to replicate the issue. The parent table (the >> one referenced in the LIKE portion of the CREATE TABLE statement) had >> three indices. >> >> Now that I've been able to replicate the issue, are there tests that I >> can perform that would be useful to people? >> I will also try to build a stand-alone test. > > While the WAL is suppressed for the table inserts, it is not > suppressed for the index inserts, and the index WAL traffic is enough > to lead to contention.
Aha! > I don't know why that is the case, it seems like the same method that > allows us to bypass WAL for the table would work for the indices as > well. Maybe it is just that no one bothered to implement it. After > all, building the index after the copy will be even more efficient > than building it before but by-passing WAL. > But it does seem like the docs could at least be clarified here. In general, then, would it be safe to say that concurrent (parallel) index creation may be a source of significant WAL contention? I was planning on taking advantage of this due to modern, beefy boxes with 10's of CPUs all just sitting there bored. -- Jon -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
