From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c) |
Date: | 2014-09-15 23:19:32 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSsc-piWmU_wY1TFXZ2CL-Cw-xuPZc7e5jPp9O5g+HxFA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> Now that the logic is fixed, I hope we
>> won't get complaints that the indexes are bigger, if you fill a table by
>> appending to the end. I wonder if we should aim at an even more uneven
>> split; the default fillfactor for B-trees is 90%, for example. I didn't
>> go that high when I wrote that, because the code in previous versions
>> always did a 50/50 split. But it could be argued that a higher
>> fillfactor makes sense for a GIN index - they typically don't get as
>> much random updates as a B-tree.
>
>
> Actually, we should add a fillfactor reloption to GIN. But that's 9.5
> material.
Actually gin is the only method that does not have this parameter, no?
Then the following extra-processing would be enough I imagine:
1) Tune freespace using fillfactor when placing keys to leaf data page
(dataPlaceToPageLeaf)
2) On split, instead of (BLCKSZ * 3) / 4, have the left leaf full at
(BLCKSZ * fillfactor) / 100
Regards,
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-09-15 23:21:06 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-09-15 23:05:59 | Re: jsonb format is pessimal for toast compression |