Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149091337B6E for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:06:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20762-03 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:05:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mh3.mail.rice.edu (mh3.mail.rice.edu [128.42.199.10]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16E91337B3E for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:05:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mh3.mail.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mh3.mail.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2618B28F8D3; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:05:51 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.6.4 at mh3.mail.rice.edu, auth channel Received: from mh3.mail.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mh3.mail.rice.edu (mh3.mail.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id 5GzAg2UQGiZ9; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:05:51 -0500 (CDT) X-SMTP-Auth: no X-SMTP-Auth: no Received: from aart.is.rice.edu (aart.is.rice.edu [168.7.56.48]) by mh3.mail.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBEC28F8EC; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:05:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: by aart.is.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 18612) id 827602D5A6; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:05:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:05:50 -0500 From: Kenneth Marshall To: Glyn Astill Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9? Message-ID: <20110401130550.GU26726@aart.is.rice.edu> References: <850209.10490.qm@web26006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <850209.10490.qm@web26006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201104/14 X-Sequence-Number: 37195 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