MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHJZqBA83fBGjqXqF+rVbErdy2N0_zDEiLWJMrDUSKjKQOZi3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHJZqBA83fBGjqXqF+rVbErdy2N0_zDEiLWJMrDUSKjKQOZi3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 11:34:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH2-Wzmq+ZLkYFLq-WGJhd=xJ0UosQMuLCMbHXKcKucwsSL=eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?
To: Don Seiler <don@seiler.us>
Cc: Postgres General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wzmq%2BZLkYFLq-WGJhd%3DxJ0UosQMuLCMbHXKcKucwsSL%3Deg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:24=E2=80=AFAM Don Seiler <don@seiler.us> wrote:
> One thing worth mentioning is that the table is 4 columns, the index is o=
n two of them and includes the other two. I can't think of an explanation f=
or the index being so much larger than its table, especially compared to la=
st month's index.
>
> Curious if anyone has any thoughts on what might be causing this.

You mentioned that this has 4 columns. Sounds like this could be a
"locally monotonically increasing index". I wonder if you're
benefiting from this optimization, though only inconsistently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp5RaATILoiE&t=3D2079s
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=3Dpostgresql.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Df21668=
f3

Of course, this is only a guess. I vaguely recall a complaint that
sounded vaguely like yours, also involving partitioning.

--
Peter Geoghegan