| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Minor TODO list changes |
| Date: | 2004-11-04 17:14:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1099588442.4320.518.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 16:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, I updated all your items.
Thanks
> I removed fillfactor because I thought I
> was the only one who thought it was valuable and as I remember it was
> mostly useful for ISAM, which we don't support. Can you think of a use
> for a non-100% fillfactor?
>
I was under the impression the factor was 67% for data loaded on the
leading-edge of an index, and 50% for other INSERTs.
(backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c)
Not sure, without checking, what CREATE INDEX and COPY do, but I'm
guessing it is similar?
Other RDBMS use a higher leading-edge/standard fill factor.
There are situations where I'd want to set it at 90%, or even 100%. If I
know the update rate is likely to be zero, then I'd like my indexes to
fit in 10-30% less memory and disk, please.
Or am I missing something?
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-04 17:18:38 | Re: Minor TODO list changes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-04 17:09:39 | Re: Minor TODO list changes |