On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:36:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now that the index options infrastructure is in, I am having a couple of
> second thoughts about the specific behavior that's been implemented,
> particularly for btree fillfactor.
>
> 1. ... I'm thinking
> we could change the nbtsort.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ... Do you think there should be a way of packing certain
> indexes tighter, once they are known to be mostly read only? For
> example, an option on REINDEX? This would free PostgreSQL to use a
> smaller fillfactor while still allowing people to optimize those of
> their
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 03:17:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > ... Do you think there should be a way of packing certain
> > indexes tighter, once they are known to be mostly read only? For
> > example, an option on REINDEX? This would free PostgreSQL to use a
> > smaller
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-07-10 kell 12:36, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> 3. What should the minimum fillfactor be? The patch as submitted
> set the minimum to 50% for all relation types. I'm inclined to
> think we should allow much lower fillfactors, maybe down to 10%.
> A really low fillfactor could b
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:36:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now that the index options infrastructure is in, I am having a couple of
> second thoughts about the specific behavior that's been implemented,
> particularly for btree fillfactor.
> 1. The btree build code (nbtsort.c) is dependent on the
