Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Date
Msg-id 87acwgml26.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
List pgsql-performance
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

> but is there any significant performance benefit to doing that which would
> offset the compaction advantage?

Just as a side comment. Setting PCTFREE 0 PCTUSED 100 on tables that have no
updates on them has an astonishingly big effect on speed. So the penalty for
leaving some space free really is substantial.

I think the other poster is right. Oracle really needs pctfree because of the
way it handles updates. Postgres doesn't really need as much because it
doesn't try to squeeze the new tuple in the space the old one took up. If it
doesn't fit on the page the worst that happens is it has to store it on some
other page, whereas oracle has to do its strange row chaining thing.

--
greg

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?