From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GUC for default heap fillfactor |
Date: | 2007-08-09 00:57:48 |
Message-ID: | 20070809093433.60CA.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If HOT gets into 8.3, we might need a GUC to set database wide heap
> fillfactor to an appropriate value.
I have no objection to do that, but we will need other default values soon,
something like default_[heap|btree|hash|gist|gin]_fillfactor. Some of us
might feel it is mess to add random guc variables.
> HOT works much
> better if there is atleast one tuple worth of free space in each block.
I find it is more important. You say *number-of-tuples* is more suitable
unit for fillfactor than *percentage*. It might be good to reconsider the
unit when we add a database wide GUC parameter. It could be that there are
a tables with 80 bytes length of tuples (1%) and one with 800 bytes length
(10%) in the same database.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-08-09 00:57:53 | HOT and INSERT/DELETE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-09 00:28:40 | Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure |