From: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:17:41 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <983729.42184.qm@web26003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110401130550.GU26726@aart.is.rice.edu>
--- 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?
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: glynastill@yahoo.co.uk, ktm@rice.edu
Subject: Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
In-Reply-To: <983729.42184.qm@web26003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
* 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