From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FILLFACTOR and increasing index |
Date: | 2011-05-09 14:41:30 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimV67KUQhmNPn=Vf+4av3-ot8Nprg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>> > I have an index on a timestamp value that is inserted, for 90%
>> > of the inserts, in increasing order. No updates, no deletes on the
>> > table (appends only).
>>
>> The bit about "increasing order" is a red herring here. If you have
>> no updates, then you can leave the FILLFACTOR alone.
>>
>> FILLFACTOR controls how much extra room there is in the way the table
>> is stored, so that if a row is UPDATEd it might be possible to store
>> the row in the same disk page. This alleviates certain pathological
>> conditions with high-UPDATE tables and the way Postgres stores the
>> data (the non-overwriting storage manager).
>
>
> (please add the list when replying to emails)
>
> I'm talking about the index fillfactor, not the table fillfactor...
It will be really useful to see some test results where you alter the
fillfactor and report various measurables.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2011-05-09 15:14:15 | Re: simple update query too long |
Previous Message | F T | 2011-05-09 14:39:52 | simple update query too long |