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=sabd27GTPAAu9eR9yPbqeykoAFPGaB9BzX4MjXY1yItUECPNWIdVqriL3u4YvJEjwXlOEJSWJsYBtId6gG3Y69aulpbm6DMVMkEnGSYAYF1H0zgGAu1z5Oinws6reArNf/AFnARJkxpjOcT4kjhagKuTV2i4CUSxuGsd4ACxFzU=;
Message-ID: <983729.42184.qm@web26003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:17:41 +0100 (BST)
From: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Index fillfactor changed in pg9?
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <20110401130550.GU26726@aart.is.rice.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> wrote:=0A=0A> > =0A> > =
Just testing some new hardware on 9.0.3 and have=0A> restored one of our du=
mps from 8.4.7.=A0 What I'm seeing=0A> is although table sizes are the same=
, indexes are a lot=0A> bigger, approx 50%.=0A> > =0A> > I've done a search=
 and so far can't find anything, but=0A> have default fillfactors changed? =
Or is it something else?=0A> > =0A> > Thanks=0A> > Glyn=0A> > =0A> =0A> Giv=
en absolutely zero information, are both platforms the=0A> same=0A> number =
of bits? 32-versus 64-bit? The alignment needs for=0A> 64-bit=0A> could res=
ult in needing more space. Another alternative is=0A> that=0A> the order of=
 data insertion caused a bigger index. What=0A> happens=0A> if you run a RE=
INDEX on both DB's to the index sizes?=0A> =0A> Regards,=0A> Ken=0A> =0A=0A=
Sorry for the lack of info there. Both are 64 bit, both have ext3 filesyste=
ms set up the same, the 8.4 machine is on kernel 2.6.26 whereas the 9.0 mac=
hine is on 2.6.32.=0A=0AREINDEX does indeed decreace the size.  I guess the=
 question is why does pg_restore create them bloated? Could it be the parra=
llel (-j) option?