Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:07:15 -0500
From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index bloat of 4x
Message-Id: <20070118080715.479b9315.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
In-Reply-To: <19674.1169104105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20070117093223.bcdb302e.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<20070117154251.GG26080@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20070117113216.a6d72185.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<20070117171251.GH26080@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20070117125203.899f6660.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<19674.1169104105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Organization: Collaborative Fusion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In response to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> writes:
> > It wasn't the fact that it bloated that surprised me.  It was the
> > _magnitude_ of bloat that I wasn't expecting, as well as the fact that
> > it was _all_ _index_ bloat.
> 
> Um, no, you had plenty of table *and* index bloat before.  The problem
> here is that VACUUM FULL fixed all the table bloat whilst making the
> index situation worse :-(

Right.  It doesn't _look_ that way from the graph, but that's because I only
graph total DB size.  I expect if I graphed data and index size separately,
it would be evident.

At this point, I'm going to assume that my question of, "Is this 4x bloat
strange enough to warrant further investigation" is "no".  It seems like
this amount of bloat isn't terribly unusual, and that the people working on
improving this sort of thing already have enough examples of it.

Thanks to everyone for the replies.

-- 
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.