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 work often with time-oriented apps that
have heavy "give me every record between <a> and <b>" components to
them, and good sequential index performance can be an important
requirement for that kind of application.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us