Re: FILLFACTOR and increasing index

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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