| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic keys and index fillfactor |
| Date: | 2023-01-12 22:54:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwanbq3T1xiysk=kP9Oy5qtNyXdFG8asPxttBq_fJg==8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 3:45 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> (This mostly pertains to recreating a PK on an existing table.)
>
> Is there any reason to have the PK index on an ever-increasing field (for
> example SERIAL, sequence or timestamp fed by clock_timestamp() at time
> zone
> 'UTC') be anything but fillfactor=100?
>
> New records will always be added to the "lower right hand corner" of the
> tree, so having 20% empty space in the rest of the tree would just waste
> space (mainly buffers, but disk space could even start to add up on Very
> Big
> Tables).
>
>
Yes, at least that is what I gather from the advice on the CREATE INDEX
page.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-createindex.html
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavan Schneider | 2023-01-12 23:33:19 | Re: Synthetic keys and index fillfactor |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2023-01-12 22:45:05 | Synthetic keys and index fillfactor |