Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?

From: Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us>
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Mullineux <dmullx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?
Date: 2024-11-07 03:41:02
Message-ID: CAHJZqBAkQ7r25SBvsREH5TrVoUoA83XCLbUEv9maiJaNSz6H4A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:13 AM Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Whats the fill factor?
>

No fill factor is specified, so I'm assuming it's the default 90% for
indexes.

FYI we did a REINDEX for the index in question tonight. Since the index was
for last month, there are no more writes to it so we didn't use
CONCURRENTLY either. The size went from 83GB to 48GB, which also happens to
be the size of the table partition.

--
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Torsten Förtsch 2024-11-07 09:46:49 Re: Trouble using pg_rewind to undo standby promotion
Previous Message David Mullineux 2024-11-06 22:11:00 Re: Performance Issue with Hash Partition Query Execution in PostgreSQL 16