Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?
| От | Don Seiler |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAHJZqBCgYwWns2cRsbk5NWnLHXmmQPdKn7A+dknbA2sWH5TCUQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition? (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Index Partition Size Double of its Table Partition?
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:23 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
If a substantial amount of the index was written by CREATE INDEX (and
not by retail inserts) then my theory is unlikely to be correct. It
could just be that you managed to absorb most inserts in one
partition, but not in the other. That's probably possible when there
are only relatively small differences in the number of inserts that
need to use of the space left behind by fillfactor in each case. In
general page splits tend to come in distinct "waves" after CREATE
INDEX is run.
What do you mean by "absorb" the inserts?
It sounds like the answer will be "No", but: Would rebuilding the index after the month-end (when inserts have stopped on this partition) change anything?
Don.
-- Don Seiler
www.seiler.us
www.seiler.us
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: