2006/8/10, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
How aggressively does PostgreSQL keep b-trees in balance?
Inserting the range [1..1000] should result in a right-
unbalanced tree.
Are you talking about a tree that is unbalanced regarding its height
(ie, has some leaves that are further away fr
On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:57 AM, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
Disagree.
We only apply reindex on tables that see lots of updates...
With our 7.4.x databases we vacuum each day, but we see real
performance gains after re-indexing too - we see lower load
averages and no decrease in responsiveness
Disagree.
We only apply reindex on tables that see lots of updates...
With our 7.4.x databases we vacuum each day, but we see real performance
gains after re-indexing too - we see lower load averages and no decrease
in responsiveness over time. Plus we have the benefit of reduced disk
space u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:46:44PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:44, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
[snip]
> And if you're vacuuming frequently enough, there shouldn't be
> that much need to reindex.
How ag
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:46:44PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:44, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
> > In addition to making sure databases are vacuumed regularly, it is worth
> > running REINDEX on tables that see a lot of updates (or insert/deletes).
> >
> > Running REIND
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 18:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Reindex was originally
> > designed to fix broken indexes, and, at least in earlier encarnations,
> > should something stop it in the middle of reindexing I believe it is
> > possible to be left with no ind
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Reindex was originally
> designed to fix broken indexes, and, at least in earlier encarnations,
> should something stop it in the middle of reindexing I believe it is
> possible to be left with no index.
That was once true but these days reindex is perfe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:44, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
>> In addition to making sure databases are vacuumed regularly, it is worth
>> running REINDEX on tables that see a lot of updates (or insert/deletes).
>>
>> Running REIND
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:44, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
> In addition to making sure databases are vacuumed regularly, it is worth
> running REINDEX on tables that see a lot of updates (or insert/deletes).
>
> Running REINDEX on a regular basis will keep the indexes compacted and
> can noticeab
In addition to making sure databases are vacuumed regularly, it is worth
running REINDEX on tables that see a lot of updates (or insert/deletes).
Running REINDEX on a regular basis will keep the indexes compacted and
can noticeably improve the database performance.
The other benefit is that t
10 matches
Mail list logo
