D
dbeavon
Guest
>> I did some tests on idxactivate ... Your times are very similar to what I experienced. I was adding two indexes of about 5 fields each to a table of 100 million rows. The addition of each of the new indexes was taking about two hours. For my tests I used two approaches that were both done on an offline database (1) adding the INDEX so that it is initially active via SQL, and (2) adding the INDEX as an inactive one and then using idxactivate afterwards. Did you happen to monitor your CPU and disk while doing this? My observation is that CPU runs on a single core at 100% the entire time and disk is *not* really taxed at all (no issues related to the response times on disk, especially when using a fast SSD). The bottleneck definitely appears to be CPU (or more specifically the clock speed of a *single* core). Insofar as performance goes, it seemed that "idxactivate" was similar to adding the an INDEX that is initially active via SQL. The main difference is whether the system is available to user while the index is being built.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...