Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6AnS-00B8zr-17 for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:39:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6AnQ-00A7FJ-6w for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:39:44 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6AnP-00A7Ex-Rn for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:39:44 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6AnM-003qKX-UF for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:39:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5cbb6166c06so52841a12.0 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:39:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=seiler-us.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1730302780; x=1730907580; darn=postgresql.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dmlrZslCKAloVoO+HISWUIjgq7yQaivSHxlgtmqn4x8=; b=G5vt81Kzj76VGC6yHRQgeOatYcdKaEU9TkC9zRapS+sjTzvk2sph8W0aG+3idI9BFb e0Z9A82MczNH+sHjQ3P0FanhD3BiWnisCPYyC+ZUh6muA7kS0lO51bta7bhvKpSCWiWl R1ACUzBHugxjeImPz4Cc04HLHwbgFAp3t6Yn30c1brsjUMHk0uqUCUci/UL45DHddusB /3Il+drtdTHlnIbZorC86HDHIv7CqY3L8pangFdLUEnO5LAugboshyY1lxlFl5NFklGN 4tzidtTbvBFXYvPNFpoIvuwc7Obeta6va7LT+yH3JOdUUw0Mud4821hAYR2PZ/dn2QIk BXgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730302780; x=1730907580; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=dmlrZslCKAloVoO+HISWUIjgq7yQaivSHxlgtmqn4x8=; b=DaSqgg9w/NtQHx58wK47jjhPaJa9Nj2q7TXA4qP1dAa+kT/I7TsgAafXIz9HqiDLMI uoYbNUk2RTRtjR2PNDGnBXkROlEoUoN8AjACudbx3tUKmtnlGltj/HnNdpaTZGE8YE5b Jfwikt96frSH7DfDFr1xJoEyJeOPGvLdSG2my277Vb94WGGph9I0awzHvUAWDLuTNErT TvR4wgphcoPrkOqXrxZF+jfRZcBZHau32nDOs4OypGnpNwj7b9XuXU1hjLyAw28hfn2B MlkvGuDRX0Y0EWfRGo6GpXU50OIRs8cKnxHMchIrPTU0xQENfSvCkg5Bfgti7b9nPwCn 6dEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxNfLD7q+YIgMERhiocakaOTop01Zk5/V+UGof6mz4qlU5DGCDT 8OCfzEbAHWiVPsonyLGXvR3f/ba0McjqcSFOae0QFpmk07QKz+UDd9LrnnrdmhWK4rjq/V7rT/D xWwYPS3NVDx5Iq+ainpUsSbAejwgb8yy99deoLQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGdnF7ZGWa4KPX1KRTw+4RWviMZaln1C3TFJ/dJJgcbpQi/uXS/uMd3WR+bzaWQb/xS1XaJoVlT/bVtPxfZlH0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3f04:b0:a9d:e1d6:41fc with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a9de61ddf1fmr1656893166b.53.1730302779870; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:39:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Don Seiler Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 10:39:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition? To: Peter Geoghegan Cc: Postgres General Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c755d0625b382dd" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --0000000000008c755d0625b382dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM Peter Geoghegan wrote= : > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:24=E2=80=AFAM Don Seiler wrote= : > > One thing worth mentioning is that the table is 4 columns, the index is > on two of them and includes the other two. I can't think of an explanatio= n > for the index being so much larger than its table, especially compared to > last 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=3Df216= 68f3 > > Of course, this is only a guess. I vaguely recall a complaint that > sounded vaguely like yours, also involving partitioning. > Thanks Peter, I'll look into that shortly. I should have also included that this is on PG 15 (currently 15.8 but we created the indexes when it was still 15.7) on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. Don. --=20 Don Seiler www.seiler.us --0000000000008c755d0625b382dd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:24=E2=80=AFAM D= on Seiler <don@seiler= .us> wrote:
> One thing worth mentioning is that the table is 4 columns, the index i= s on two of them and includes the other two. I can't think of an explan= ation for the index being so much larger than its table, especially compare= d to last 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<= br> benefiting from this optimization, though only inconsistently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp5RaATI= LoiE&t=3D2079s
https://git.postgresql.= org/gitweb/?p=3Dpostgresql.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Df21668f3

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

Thanks Peter, I'll look into = that shortly.

I should have also included that thi= s is on PG 15 (currently 15.8 but we created the indexes when it was still = 15.7) on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS.

Don.

=
--
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us
<= /div> --0000000000008c755d0625b382dd--