On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Albe Laurenz
wrote:
> >> Even with COW, I can see fillfactor < 100% still have its virtues. For
> >> example, HOT update can avoid adding an extra index item on the index
> >> page if it finds the new item can be inserted in the same heap page.
>
> > That's true,
Geoff Speicher wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Qingqing Zhou
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Geoff Speicher
>> wrote:
>>> ZFS implements copy-on-write, so when PostgreSQL modifies a block on disk,
>>> the filesystem writes a new block rather than updating the existing blo
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Qingqing Zhou
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Geoff Speicher
> wrote:
> > Therefore one might posit that PostgreSQL should be configured to use
> 100%
> > fillfactor and avoid clustering on ZFS. Can anyone comment on this?
> >
>
> Even with COW, I can s
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Geoff Speicher wrote:
> Therefore one might posit that PostgreSQL should be configured to use 100%
> fillfactor and avoid clustering on ZFS. Can anyone comment on this?
>
Even with COW, I can see fillfactor < 100% still have its virtues. For
example, HOT update ca
I am trying to determine the behavior of a system using ZFS to back a
PostgreSQL instance as it relates to fillfactor and table clustering.
ZFS implements copy-on-write, so when PostgreSQL modifies a block on disk,
the filesystem writes a new block rather than updating the existing block.
Unless I
