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
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? |