From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fillfactor for GIN indexes |
Date: | 2015-01-19 13:24:08 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoabZ+BHJvZOatZQbN56ooTh=YSmpAgsAz=FkMh19yLoqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I already wrote quite detailed explanation of subject. Let mel try to
> explain in shortly. GIN is two level nested btree. Thus, GIN would have
> absolutely same benefits from fillfactor as btree. Lack of tests showing it
> is, for sure, fault.
>
> However, GIN posting trees are ordered by ItemPointer and this makes some
> specific. If you have freshly created table and do inserts/updates they
> would use the end of heap. Thus, inserts would go to the end of GIN posting
> tree and fillfactor wouldn't affect anything. Fillfactor would give benefits
> on HOT or heap space re-usage.
Ah, OK. Those tests clarify things considerably; I see the point now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-19 13:26:59 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-19 13:20:36 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |