From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com, "Pgsql General list" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Default fill factor for tables? |
Date: | 2008-07-11 21:25:29 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10807111425g6259d628q8c4b3aaae8cc13f5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 14:51 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> I would kindly disagree. I'm looking at a project where HOT updates
>> are going to be a real performance enhancement, but I'll have to
>> create a hundred or so tables ALL with fillfactor tacked on the end.
>
> You clearly think that adjusting fillfactor helps in all cases with HOT.
> I disagree with that, else would have pushed earlier for exactly what
> you suggest. In fact, I've has this exact discussion previously.
How odd, because that's clearly NOT what I said. In fact I used the
single "a" to describe the project I was looking at where having a
default table fill factor of < 100 would be very useful. OTOH, I have
stats databases that have only insert and drop child tables that would
not benefit from < 100 fill factor. For a heavily updated database,
where most of the updates will NOT be on indexed columns, as the ONE
project I'm looking at, a default fill factor would be quite a time
saver.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-11 21:30:19 | Re: recovery do not finish |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-11 21:24:01 | Re: Default fill factor for tables? |