Re: Exact index overhead

["Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Gunther Mayer
<gunther(dot)mayer(at)googlemail(dot)com> wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>

> > 2. The existing block should have enough free space to accommodate the
> > new version
> > A less than 100 fillfactor may help you given your rate of updates.
> >
> >
>  I see, as soon as a new block is required for the new version the index
> pointer needs updating too, I understand now. But at least in the common
> case of space being available the index overhead is reduced to zero. I can
> live with that.

Quick clarification, it's the table, not the index that has to have
free space for the new row version.  This rewards good normalization
practices (narrower rows) and a lower fill factor.