| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksey Tsalolikhin <atsaloli(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does my DB size differ between Production and DR? (Postgres 8.4) |
| Date: | 2011-02-03 05:34:47 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=Ge4-RWticcRhxDTZ4wkddw9yRJ5P08t_Y88oz@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Peter Geoghegan
<peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 05:41, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't increase index fill factor as an optimisation, unless you
>>> had the unusual situation of having very static data in the table.
>>
>> That makes no sense whatsoever. You decrease fill factor (not
>> increase btw) so there will be some space for future updates. If he's
>> getting bloat it may well help quite a bit to have a lower than 100%
>> fill factor.
>
> As I said, it depends on the profile of the data. Heavily or randomly
> updated tables will benefit from reducing *index* fillfactor - it will
> reduce index fragmentation. OTOH, indexes for static data can have
> their fillfactors increased to 100% from the default of 90% without
> consequence.
>
Certainly. I was talking table fill factor at the time, so that's why
I wasn't sure what you meant.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-02-03 06:43:01 | Re: upgrade |
| Previous Message | Mad | 2011-02-03 03:55:40 | Re: PQfinish blocking on non-existent IP address ... |