| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes |
| Date: | 2011-04-28 21:17:12 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=YZNpqR9tgCDrQht6QXZcTD-7e=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm currently looking at a database which has some extreme bloating of
> intarray GiST indexes. As in 1000% bloating in only a few months. This
> is not a particularly high-transaction-rate database, so the bloating is
> a little surprising; I can only explain it if vacuum wasn't cleaning the
> indexes at all, and maybe not even then.
>
> We're currently instrumenting the database so that we can collect a bit
> more data on update activity, but in the meantime, has anyone seen
> anything like this?
What opclass is used for GiST index: gist__int_ops or gist__intbig_ops?
Do you take into account that gist__int_ops is very inefficient for large
datasets?
----
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-28 21:27:29 | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-04-28 21:16:11 | Re: Extension Packaging |