On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Peter Geoghegan
<peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 05:41, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't increase index fill factor as an optimisation, unless you
>>> had the unusual situation of having very static data in the table.
>>
>> That makes no sense whatsoever. You decrease fill factor (not
>> increase btw) so there will be some space for future updates. If he's
>> getting bloat it may well help quite a bit to have a lower than 100%
>> fill factor.
>
> As I said, it depends on the profile of the data. Heavily or randomly
> updated tables will benefit from reducing *index* fillfactor - it will
> reduce index fragmentation. OTOH, indexes for static data can have
> their fillfactors increased to 100% from the default of 90% without
> consequence.
>
Certainly. I was talking table fill factor at the time, so that's why
I wasn't sure what you meant.
