| From: | "Phoenix Kiula" <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Williamson" <Gregory(dot)Williamson(at)digitalglobe(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Richard Broersma Jr" <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER |
| Date: | 2007-09-19 05:00:15 |
| Message-ID: | e373d31e0709182200q4292aa67i3039a2df4f459a8f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 19/09/2007, Gregory Williamson <Gregory(dot)Williamson(at)digitalglobe(dot)com> wrote:
...
> Can't speak directly to PostgreSQL but in Informix the fill factor is
> useful for tweaking indexes. A very high fill factor is useful for tables
> that are static -- any inserts or changes to the index trigger a *lot* of
> moving of b-tree branches. But the high fill factor means that each page has
> more useful data references in it. A very low fill factor means that pages
> are "sparse" and so inserts and updates are less likely to trigger massive
> b-tree rebalancings.
Assuming pgsql's fill factor is similar to Informix' (yes, a highly
suspect assumption), could we say:
1. A small fill factor such as 10 or 20 would be good for the index
size and will not trigger massive btree rebalancings? (I'm first
playing with a value of 60 for now and seeing how it works out...seems
ok at the moment!)
2. Is this fill factor enough to have on the table, or should I also
do a fill factor for specific indexes? Or both the table and the
index? (I have four btree indexes on the table)
Thanks
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | A. Kretschmer | 2007-09-19 05:57:54 | Re: help w/ SRF function |
| Previous Message | Mikko Partio | 2007-09-19 04:19:08 | Re: Problem dropping table |