| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Durgamahesh Manne <maheshpostgres9(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fillfactor effectiveness on existing table |
| Date: | 2026-02-10 16:05:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYppwZRZQ128T+z638iMNGYcuLGHw42DD_AKSTnZu9QVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday, February 10, 2026, Durgamahesh Manne <maheshpostgres9(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I added fillfactor with less than 100 to existing table then ran vacuum
> full to take effect
>
> How to ensure the applied fillfactor is working successfully
>
> A ratio of hot updates in catalog table should higher than value of
> n_dead_tup or n_tup_upd? Or what ?
>
>
While free space on the page is necessary for HOT, it is not sufficient.
If you want to prove fillfactor isn’t buggy I’d suggest contriving a test
case instead inspecting complex real data. A table with a single bigint
and say 50 fillfactor should be easily visible when inspecting the free
space of a page in the heap (not sure of the exact query for this though).
There is a page-inspect contrib extension that provides low-level details.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2026-02-10 17:28:03 | Re: Fillfactor effectiveness on existing table |
| Previous Message | Durgamahesh Manne | 2026-02-10 15:55:38 | Fillfactor effectiveness on existing table |