| From: | Greg Williamson <Gregory(dot)Williamson(at)digitalglobe(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER |
| Date: | 2007-09-18 19:20:26 |
| Message-ID: | 46F024FA.50909@digitalglobe.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
> --- Gregory Williamson <Gregory(dot)Williamson(at)digitalglobe(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> A very low fill factor means that pages are
>> "sparse" and so inserts and updates are less likely to trigger massive b-tree rebalancings.
>>
>
> I take it that "massive b-tree rebalancings" could cause a problem with the performance of disk
> writing though-put from UPDATEs and INSERTs?
>
> Regards,
> Richard Broersma Jr.
>
Precisely -- even if it can keep everything in RAM it can occupy quite a
few cycles to rebalance a large b-tree. And eventually those changes do
need to get written to disk so the next checkpoint (I think) will also
have more work.
G
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ken Logan | 2007-09-18 19:42:49 | Re: Problem dropping table |
| Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2007-09-18 19:17:03 | Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER |