From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Stosberg <mark(at)summersault(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: surprised to find bloat in insert-only table |
Date: | 2011-06-03 17:39:12 |
Message-ID: | 1739.1307122752@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Mark Stosberg <mark(at)summersault(dot)com> writes:
> Compared to 1669 MB reported as table bloat in the 'bloat' view. So,
> the bloat is about 40% of the total size.
> For an index, it's 410 MB of bloat, vs 1669 MB for an index size.
Hm ... 40% unused space wouldn't be surprising at all for an index.
The traditional rule of thumb for a b-tree index is that the steady
state fill factor is about 2/3rds. You can do better for an index that
is loaded in increasing order (eg, an index on a serial or timestamp
column typically has a higher fill factor) but indexes on columns that
are more random are not going to see that.
> One thing that looks suspicious is that the exact same number of bytes
> is being report for the table as well as each index.
Um. In that case I'd say your view is flat out wrong...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Holt | 2011-06-03 18:07:15 | Streaming replication status and fail over questions |
Previous Message | Mark Stosberg | 2011-06-03 17:03:31 | Re: surprised to find bloat in insert-only table |