DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk;
	h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=atpoia2B694Q4rqWmmljfAE//debetGfjcuiU4NSee3sxjCPeLUD1iyTfeGVp1Q8YHT9Ch8/x2F/OJWJjByy6NnbM/T5E2yIqXnfvyNrTDEoLu0t6QPRqwb/JXH7t/l8yeJ6SjuDTwaifc4T1XqouaJtoRnvis4/z3527I09ZQE=;
Message-ID: <669511.20278.qm@web26006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:28:58 +0100 (BST)
From: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Bloated indexes from pg_restore? (Was: Index fillfactor changed
	in pg9?)
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <983729.42184.qm@web26003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:=0A> --- On =
Fri, 1/4/11, Kenneth Marshall wrote:=0A> What=0A> > happens=0A> > if you ru=
n a REINDEX on both DB's to the index sizes?=0A> > =0A> > Regards,=0A> > Ke=
n=0A> > =0A> =0A> Sorry for the lack of info there. Both are 64 bit, both=
=0A> have ext3 filesystems set up the same, the 8.4 machine is on=0A> kerne=
l 2.6.26 whereas the 9.0 machine is on 2.6.32.=0A> =0A> REINDEX does indeed=
 decreace the size.=A0 I guess the=0A> question is why does pg_restore crea=
te them bloated? Could=0A> it be the parrallel (-j) option?=0A> =0A=0ASo it=
 appears now that if I restore the database using pg_restore, I end up with=
 bloated indexes, which are fixed with a vacuum full.=0A=0AThe dump is a da=
ta only dump with the -Fc flag, taken with pg_dump as follows=0A=0Apg_dump =
-Fc mydatabase -U postgres -h localhost -a --disable-triggers -f data-dump.=
gz=0A=0AThat appears to restore with COPY, using the following =0A=0Apg_res=
tore -U postgres --disable-triggers -c -d mydatabase data-dump.gz=0A=0AI'm =
a bit perplexed by this