Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?

From: Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?
Date: 2024-10-30 16:28:54
Message-ID: CAHJZqBCgYwWns2cRsbk5NWnLHXmmQPdKn7A+dknbA2sWH5TCUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:23 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:

>
> If a substantial amount of the index was written by CREATE INDEX (and
> not by retail inserts) then my theory is unlikely to be correct. It
> could just be that you managed to absorb most inserts in one
> partition, but not in the other. That's probably possible when there
> are only relatively small differences in the number of inserts that
> need to use of the space left behind by fillfactor in each case. In
> general page splits tend to come in distinct "waves" after CREATE
> INDEX is run.
>

What do you mean by "absorb" the inserts?

It sounds like the answer will be "No", but: Would rebuilding the index
after the month-end (when inserts have stopped on this partition) change
anything?

Don.
--
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Mullineux 2024-10-30 21:59:07 Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-10-30 16:22:37 Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?