| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 15:19:54 |
| Message-ID: | 11725.1304522394@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have another hypothesis about index bloat cause. AFAIK, vaccum procedure
> on GiST don't have any storage utilization guarantee. For example, if only
> one live item is in some page, then only one item will be left in this page.
> I.e. there is no index reroganization during vacuum. If there wouldn't be
> many inserts into such pages in future then they will be stay bloat.
Possibly, but the same is true of btree indexes, and we very seldom see
cases where that's a serious issue. In any case, this is all just
speculation without evidence --- we need to see actual data to figure
out what's going on.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2011-05-04 15:22:34 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Korry Douglas | 2011-05-04 15:19:33 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |