Re: Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c)

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c)
Date: 2014-09-12 08:42:39
Message-ID: 5412B1FF.4000306@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/12/2014 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Now that the logic is fixed, I hope we
> won't get complaints that the indexes are bigger, if you fill a table by
> appending to the end. I wonder if we should aim at an even more uneven
> split; the default fillfactor for B-trees is 90%, for example. I didn't
> go that high when I wrote that, because the code in previous versions
> always did a 50/50 split. But it could be argued that a higher
> fillfactor makes sense for a GIN index - they typically don't get as
> much random updates as a B-tree.

Actually, we should add a fillfactor reloption to GIN. But that's 9.5
material.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-09-12 09:03:53 Re: pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-09-12 08:38:40 Re: Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c)