Re: Regarding fillfactor use case for only delete ops

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 7:53 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:

> On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 09:59 -0400, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 8:57 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 14:10 +0530, Durgamahesh Manne wrote:
> > > > Can we generate a fill factor for tables that have delete ops ?
> > > >
> > > > Does the fill factor really work and help to minimize the bloat for
> tables that have delete ops?
> > > >
> > > > I have parent table with weekly partitions So for every week 50 to
> 60 gb of bloat generates and autovacuum params already in place for child
> tables
> > >
> > > Nothing can ever avoid bloat caused by DELETE, except partitioning in a
> > > way that you can drop a partition rather than running DELETE.
> >
> > Isn't the fill factor aimed at reducing bloat during updates of HOT
> tables?
>
> Yes, but not during DELETEs.
>

I still don't understand why OP is deleting from a date-partitioned table,
instead of dropping the oldest partitions.

> HOT updates also don't directly avoid bloat on tables; only on indexes.
> They reduce the bloat on tables inderectly, because the dead tuples can
> be cleaned up with less effort.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!