Re: TODO-Item: B-tree fillfactor control

ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > > - Is fillfactor useful for hash and gist indexes?
> > > I think hash does not need it, but gist might need it.
> >
> > Not sure. We don't know what type of index a GIST will be so we have no
> > way of knowing. I am thinking we can implement just btree now and the
> > GIST folks can add it later if they want. My guess is that each GIST is
> > going to behave differently for different fill-factors, so if allow it
> > to be set for GIST, GIST developers can pull the value if they want.
>
> My understanding about hash was wrong. It uses fill factor of 75%, which is
> hard-coded. On the other hand, GIST has no ability to control fill factor
> currently. I'm trying to add fill factors to hash and gist, so I'll ask
> index developers to review a patch in the future.

OK.

> > > - Is it appropriate to use GUC variables to control fillfactors?
> > > Is it better to extend CREATE INDEX / REINDEX grammar?
> >
> > I think it has to be part of CREATE INDEX and ALTER INDEX.
>
> SQL standard has no regulation for indexes, so I refered to other databases.
> - Oracle and DB2 : CREATE INDEX index ON table (...) PCTFREE 30;
> - MS SQL Server : CREATE INDEX index ON table (...) WITH FILLFACTOR = 70;
>
> PCTFREE seems to be common, so I'll extend DDL to use PCTFREE syntax.
> The following two syntaxes will be able to be used.
> 1. SET btree_free_percent = 30;
> CREATE INDEX index ON table (...);
> SET btree_free_percent = 10; -- revert
> 2. CREATE INDEX index ON table (...) PCTFREE 30;
>
> 1 would be useful for a compatibe pg_dump format, per suggestion from Tom.

I personally like FILLFACTOR, but I understand the desire to match
Oracle. PCTFREE seems too abreviated for me, but it would match the GUC
better, so maybe it is the best.

> > Is there a use for separate node and leaf settings?
>
> We should use different settings for leaf and node, but it may confuse users.
> So I'll simplify the setting as follows:
> node_free_percent = Min(30%, 3 * leaf_free_percent)
> When leaf_free_percent is 10%, node_free_percent is 30%. They are the same
> values of the current implementation.

Yes, I think that is ideal.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073