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
