On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 11:00, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Now that indexes are getting some reporting, my understanding is an > > index would report fewer pages overall than it's associated table, but > > those pages would be completely empty. However, given that they don't > > reported non-empty pages, the percentage of freeable space to total > > space would be unfairly lower (if I'm right in thinking that the back > > end will assume that non-reported pages don't have empty space in them). > > This would tend to hurt index management even though it's pages are the > > best candidates for removal (100% empty). Is this a valid concern, or am > > I misreading something? > > I'm not following your point... across relations, the proposed scheme > only considers numbers of pages, not how much space is believed free in > each such page. If anything I suspect it would over-favor the indexes. >
I think I was thinking that a given table will always report more pages than an index on that table, since tables can report 50% empty pages while indexes only report 100% empty pages. This would cause tables to generally be favored over indexes, even though the index pages have the most to gain. Robert Treat ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
