Tsearch2 index size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From richard@armchair.mb.ca
Subject Tsearch2 index size
Date
Msg-id cone.1161628619.741771.11114.1000@oldbob
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Tsearch2 index size  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I am running versions 8.1.2 and I installed 8.2B last week.  I dumped 
the data from a rather large (several million records) from the old into the 
new version.

My two observations are as follows... Also, keep in mind these are truly 
just observations, I didn't use any benchmarking tools.  If someone can 
point me to a link of performance tools, I'd be happy to try them and report 
back!

1. The release notes indicate "more efficient vacuuming."  However, both 
vacuums seems to take about the same amount of time, ie. approx: 9 hours.  
Does "more efficient" simply mean, less IO/CPU busyness?  This one doesn't 
really bother me, the next one does...

Here are my vacuum parms, I used the same ones for both versions, of 
course.
----------
maintenance_work_mem = 400000 # Unnecessarily high, I know.... I left it                             # for comparison's
sake.
vacuum_cost_delay = 50
vacuum_cost_page_hit = 1
vacuum_cost_page_miss = 10
vacuum_cost_page_dirty = 20
vacuum_cost_limit = 2000
----------



2. I have a tsearch2 index which is 756MB in size in 8.1.2 but balloons to 
910MB in 8.2!  These numbers were taken right after a REINDEX.  Normally, I 
wouldn't care about physical index size, but this particular index is 
sitting on a ramdisk, so size really does matter.  I see that the tsearch2 
type was diddled with in 8.2.  Is this an intentional change to improve the 
tsearch2 performance?

Thank you for advice or abuse you give.  No.  Wait.  No abuse please.

Richard Whidden



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] Case Preservation disregarding case
Next
From: "Henry B. Hotz"
Date:
Subject: Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods