From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
To: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:05:50 -0500
Message-ID: <20110401130550.GU26726@aart.is.rice.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <850209.10490.qm@web26006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <850209.10490.qm@web26006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:46:03PM +0100, Glyn Astill wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Just testing some new hardware on 9.0.3 and have restored one of our dumps from 8.4.7. What I'm seeing is although table sizes are the same, indexes are a lot bigger, approx 50%.
>
> I've done a search and so far can't find anything, but have default fillfactors changed? Or is it something else?
>
> Thanks
> Glyn
>
Given absolutely zero information, are both platforms the same
number of bits? 32-versus 64-bit? The alignment needs for 64-bit
could result in needing more space. Another alternative is that
the order of data insertion caused a bigger index. What happens
if you run a REINDEX on both DB's to the index sizes?
Regards,
Ken
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: ktm@rice.edu, glynastill@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
In-Reply-To: <20110401130550.GU26726@aart.is.rice.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox