On 12/08/2014 07:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
>> On 12/07/2014 05:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't see any particular difference ...
>
>> Running the above on my machine I do see the slow down the OP reports. I
>> ran it several times and it stayed around 3.5x.
>
> Interesting. A couple of points that might be worth checking:
>
> * I tried this on a 64-bit build, whereas you were evidently using 32-bit.
My laptop is 64-bit, so when I get a chance I will setup the test there
and run it to see what happens.
>
> * The EXPLAIN ANALYZE output shows that my bitmaps didn't go lossy,
> whereas yours did. This is likely because I had cranked up work_mem to
> make the index builds go faster.
>
> It's not apparent to me why either of those things would have an effect
> like this, but *something* weird is happening here.
>
> (Thinks for a bit...) A possible theory, seeing that the majority of the
> blocks are lossy in your runs, is that the reduction to lossy form is
> making worse choices about which blocks to make lossy in one case than in
> the other. I don't remember exactly how those decisions are made.
>
> Another thing that seems odd about your printout is the discrepancy
> in planning time ... the two cases have just about the same planning
> time for me, but not for you.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com