From: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE |
Date: | 2015-07-21 07:18:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+bJJbw5GL9rdg+ae54nrxpqsBGTht-5=0uh7mRtD8jaRWtUAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Igor:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, there is a caveat.
> If I create table and couple indexes like this:
..
> and populate them:
> and then check the size of the indexes:
> for "select pg_relation_size('U1')" I get 2834432
> while " select pg_relation_size('U2')" returns 2285568.
> So, index based on randomly populated column is bigger than the one based on sequentially populated.
> But, on the other hand, after:
> reindex table test_index_size;
> both indexes are of the same size: 2260992.
I would totally expect this. On reindex you get the values from a tree
walk, so both of them come in order, and being a reindex ( where you
know in advance the full set of values, so you can plan ahead where to
put the leaves, how many levels you need and how many splits ) you get
an even bigger advantage from the squential insertion case.
Francisco Olarte.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Olarte | 2015-07-21 07:21:21 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE |
Previous Message | Francisco Olarte | 2015-07-21 07:14:35 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE |