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

From Phoenix Kiula
Subject Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER
Date
Msg-id e373d31e0709180916g3c05dc93vea64fb1c1e271d19@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER  (Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>)
Responses Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER
index fillfactor (was Re: For index bloat: VACUUM ANALYZE vs REINDEX/CLUSTER)
List pgsql-general
Thanks for a very informative post! One question:


> I'm not sure how to find the current value, but a smaller fill factor
> on busy tables should lead to less fragmentation, thus more efficient
> indexes over time.  Keep in mind that a smaller fill factor will also
> lead to larger indexes initially.


What constitutes a "small fill factor"? Would 70 be good? I guess my
current must have been the default, which the manual says is 100. Or
did you mean really small fill factor like 20? In this context, what
is "packing" in the manual -- is that some kind of compression?

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Alter sequence restart with selected value...
Next
From: Jeff Ross
Date:
Subject: Re: Alter sequence restart with selected value...