Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Greg Williamson
Subject Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER
Date
Msg-id 46F024FA.50909@digitalglobe.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER  (Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER
List pgsql-general
Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
> --- Gregory Williamson <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>> A very low fill factor means that pages are
>> "sparse" and so inserts and updates are less likely to trigger massive b-tree rebalancings.
>>
>
> I take it that "massive b-tree rebalancings" could cause a problem with the performance of disk
> writing though-put from UPDATEs and INSERTs?
>
> Regards,
> Richard Broersma Jr.
>
Precisely -- even if it can keep everything in RAM it can occupy quite a
few cycles to rebalance a large b-tree. And eventually those changes do
need to get written to disk so the next checkpoint (I think) will also
have more work.
G

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Richard Broersma Jr
Date:
Subject: Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER
Next
From: Ken Logan
Date:
Subject: Re: Problem dropping table