On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> While I'm looking at this, is the first test involving
> >> effective_cache_size bulletproof either? In particular, is
> >> avgIndexTuplesPerPage clamped to be strictly greater than 1?
> > It's based on collected statistics on already inserted tuple sizes. Since
> > tuple sizes are measured after possible toasting, I don't see the way
> > for avgIndexTuplesPerPage to be less than 1.
> Yeah, but if it could be *equal* to one, you've got a zero-divide there.
avgIndexTuplesPerPage is calculated as:
avgIndexTuplesPerPage = pageFreeSpace / itupAvgSize;
I think size of each index tuple must be at least few times lower
than pageFreeSpace to let us create any index.
With best regards,
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Dilger||Date: 2012-05-29 21:06:01|
|Subject: Performance patch for Win32|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2012-05-29 20:31:20|
|Subject: Re: pg_basebackup --xlog compatibility break|