Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10683.1455836792@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of
pgstatindex() ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > I think that the P_ISLEAF() instrumentation of free space and > fragments might still need to happen for deleted and/or half dead > pages. Don't see why; the documentation and field names clearly imply that those numbers are accumulated only over leaf pages. I certainly wouldn't expect the fragmentation measure to include dead pages, for example, since they would not get traversed by scans. (Whether the "rightlink points to a higher page number" rule for fragmentation is actually very useful is a separate question; but as long as that's the measure, only pages that are part of the leaf scan sequence should count.) > Having looked at the 2008 commit d287818eb514d431 myself, ISTM > that your intent might well have been to have that happen -- why else > would any reasonable person have changed the order at all? My best guess is that I was thinking that the tests were independent, and rearranged them so that the most common case would be tested first. I'm quite sure I didn't intend to change the statistical behavior, else I would have updated docs and/or mentioned it in the commit message. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: