I am not sure if this applies only to clustering but for storage in
IIRC Oracle has 2 parameters that can be set at table creation :
from Oracle docs
PCTFREE integer :
Specify the percentage of space in each data block of the table, object
table OID index, or partition reserved for future updates to the
table's rows. The value of PCTFREE must be a value from 0 to 99. A
value of 0 allows the entire block to be filled by inserts of new rows.
The default value is 10. This value reserves 10% of each block for
updates to existing rows and allows inserts of new rows to fill a
maximum of 90% of each block.
PCTFREE has the same function in the PARTITION description and in the
statements that create and alter clusters, indexes, materialized views,
and materialized view logs. The combination of PCTFREE and PCTUSED
determines whether new rows will be inserted into existing data blocks
or into new blocks.
Specify the minimum percentage of used space that Oracle maintains for
each data block of the table, object table OID index, or
index-organized table overflow data segment. A block becomes a
candidate for row insertion when its used space falls below PCTUSED.
PCTUSED is specified as a positive integer from 0 to 99 and defaults to
PCTUSED has the same function in the PARTITION description and in the
statements that create and alter clusters, materialized views, and
materialized view logs.
PCTUSED is not a valid table storage characteristic for an
index-organized table (ORGANIZATION INDEX).
The sum of PCTFREE and PCTUSED must be equal to or less than 100. You
can use PCTFREE and PCTUSED together to utilize space within a table
PostgreSQL could take some hints from the above.
On Aug 27, 2004, at 1:26 AM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> The discussions before talked about a mechanism to try to place new
> > tuples as close as possible to the proper index position.
> Means this that an index shall have a "fill factor" property, similar
> Informix one ?
> From the manual:
> The FILLFACTOR option takes effect only when you build an index on a
> that contains more than 5,000 rows and uses more than 100 table pages,
> you create an index on a fragmented table, or when you create a
> index on a nonfragmented table.
> Use the FILLFACTOR option to provide for expansion of an index at a
> date or to create compacted indexes.
> When the index is created, the database server initially fills only
> percentage of the nodes specified with the FILLFACTOR value.
> # Providing a Low Percentage Value
> If you provide a low percentage value, such as 50, you allow room for
> in your index. The nodes of the index initially fill to a certain
> percentage and
> contain space for inserts. The amount of available space depends on the
> number of keys in each page as well as the percentage value.
> For example, with a 50-percent FILLFACTOR value, the page would be half
> full and could accommodate doubling in size. A low percentage value can
> result in faster inserts and can be used for indexes that you expect
> to grow.
> # Providing a High Percentage Value
> If you provide a high percentage value, such as 99, your indexes are
> compacted, and any new index inserts result in splitting nodes. The
> maximum density is achieved with 100 percent. With a 100-percent
> FILLFACTOR value, the index has no room available for growth; any
> additions to the index result in splitting the nodes.
> A 99-percent FILLFACTOR value allows room for at least one insertion
> node. A high percentage value can result in faster selects and can be
> used for
> indexes that you do not expect to grow or for mostly read-only indexes.
> Gaetano Mendola
> ---------------------------(end of
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Adi Alurkar (DBA sf.NET) <adi(at)vasoftware(dot)com>
1024D/79730470 A491 5724 74DE 956D 06CB D844 6DF1 B972 7973 0470
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: andrew||Date: 2004-08-27 16:52:15|
|Subject: Re: Query performance issue with 8.0.0beta1|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-08-27 16:32:43|
|Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?|