Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?

--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> wrote:

> >
> > Just testing some new hardware on 9.0.3 and have
> restored one of our dumps from 8.4.7.  What I'm seeing
> is although table sizes are the same, indexes are a lot
> bigger, approx 50%.
> >
> > I've done a search and so far can't find anything, but
> have default fillfactors changed? Or is it something else?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Glyn
> >
>
> Given absolutely zero information, are both platforms the
> same
> number of bits? 32-versus 64-bit? The alignment needs for
> 64-bit
> could result in needing more space. Another alternative is
> that
> the order of data insertion caused a bigger index. What
> happens
> if you run a REINDEX on both DB's to the index sizes?
>
> Regards,
> Ken
>

Sorry for the lack of info there. Both are 64 bit, both have ext3 filesystems set up the same, the 8.4 machine is on kernel 2.6.26 whereas the 9.0 machine is on 2.6.32.

REINDEX does indeed decreace the size. I guess the question is why does pg_restore create them bloated? Could it be the parrallel (-j) option?