X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E223A9DCAB0 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:40:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98210-08 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:40:10 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from unicorn.rentec.com (unicorn.rentec.com [216.223.240.9]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697149DD574 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:40:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from ram.rentec.com (mailhost [192.5.35.66]) by unicorn.rentec.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id jB6Ldhbw007369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:39:44 -0500 (EST) X-Source: non-mednet Received: from [172.26.132.145] (hoopoe.rentec.com [172.26.132.145]) by ram.rentec.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id jB6Ld5Bk009022; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:39:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4396052F.9050507@rentec.com> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:39:59 -0500 From: Alan Stange Reply-To: stange@rentec.com Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Vivek Khera , Postgresql Performance Subject: Re: postgresql performance tuning References: <4395F914.8070001@rentec.com> <16451.1133904057@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <16451.1133904057@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Logged: Logged by unicorn.rentec.com as jB6Ldhbw007369 at Tue Dec 6 16:39:44 2005 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/201 X-Sequence-Number: 16022 Tom Lane wrote: > Alan Stange writes: > >> Vivek Khera wrote: >> >>> what evidence do you have that you are suffering index bloat? >>> > > >> The files for the two indices on a single table used 7.8GB of space >> before a reindex, and 4.4GB after. >> > > That's not bloat ... that's pretty nearly in line with the normal > expectation for a btree index, which is about 2/3rds fill factor. > If the compacted index were 10X smaller then I'd agree that you have > a bloat problem. > I wrote "I don't think this counts as bloat...". I still don't. -- Alan