Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables

>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at  4:54 PM, in message
<7020.1214344479@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: 
> "Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker@gmail.com> writes:
>> Creating the table in this case takes half an
>> hour and then indexing it requires almost an hour.
> 
> These numbers seem to me to be pretty strong evidence that
> maintenance_work_mem = 1GB is a mistake.  Try it at 100MB and then
some
> intermediate values.
> 
> Now, *why* it is a mistake is interesting to speculate about, but
> let's confirm the theory first.
Could this be related to hint bit rewrites during indexing?
Would a vacuum between creation and indexing be a good way to tell?
-Kevin