pg.ddx.io pgsql-admin@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedIndex fillfactor changed in pg9?
3+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
@ 2011-04-01 12:46 Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Glyn Astill @ 2011-04-01 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
@ 2011-04-01 13:05 Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
parent: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kenneth Marshall @ 2011-04-01 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
@ 2011-04-01 13:17 Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
parent: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Glyn Astill @ 2011-04-01 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>; +Cc: pgsql-admin
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
Sorry for the lack of info there. Both are 64 bit, both have ext3 filesystems set up the same, the 8.4 machine is on kernel 2.6.26 whereas the 9.0 machine is on 2.6.32.
REINDEX does indeed decreace the size. I guess the question is why does pg_restore create them bloated? Could it be the parrallel (-j) option?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-01 13:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-04-01 12:46 Index fillfactor changed in pg9? Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
2011-04-01 13:05 ` Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
2011-04-01 13:17 ` Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
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