On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I note that the calculations assume that leaf tuples and internal tuples
> have similar sizes. We calculate the average leaf tuple size, and use that
> to calculate the fan-out of internal pages. On
On 29.05.2012 23:46, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexander Korotkov writes:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
While I'm looking at this, is the first test involving
effective_cache_size bulletproof either? In particular, is
a
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> While I'm looking at this, is the first test involving
> >> effective_cache_size bulletproof either? In particular, is
> >> avgIndexTuplesPerPage clamped to
Alexander Korotkov writes:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While I'm looking at this, is the first test involving
>> effective_cache_size bulletproof either? In particular, is
>> avgIndexTuplesPerPage clamped to be strictly greater than 1?
> It's based on collected statis
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> While I'm looking at this, is the first test involving
> effective_cache_size bulletproof either? In particular, is
> avgIndexTuplesPerPage clamped to be strictly greater than 1?
>
It's based on collected statistics on already inserted tuple
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> This is because of this rather complex calculation here:
>> while (
>> /* subtree must fit in cache (with safety factor of 4) */
>> (1 - pow(avgIndexTuplesPerPage, (double) (levelStep + 1))) / (1 -
>> avgIndexTuplesPerPage) < effective_cache_size / 4
>> &&
>> /* each
