Re: [GENERAL] Index size
От
Christophe Pettus
Тема
Re: [GENERAL] Index size
Дата
Msg-id
22BF390A-7248-4BE7-9930-FD51E8EF4CA8@thebuild.com
Ответ на
Re: [GENERAL] Index size (Melvin Davidson)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Index size Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Re: Index size Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>
Re: Index size Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Re: Index size Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
Re: Index size Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>
Re: Index size Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>
Re: Index size Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Re: Index size "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 08:37, Melvin Davidson wrote: > > Yes, I see your point, but the case where the row does not fit into the same block > would only occur with unlimited field types such as var[], bytea[], etc. No, that's not correct either. A block can fill up for any number of reasons: Dead tuples, a long HOT chain, or just a lot of data packed into the block. The first UPDATE to a tuple in a block that was populated by continuous INSERTs or a COPY, if the table is using the default fillfactor, will cause the new tuple to be written to a different block, which will cause an index update. The important thing to remember is that the process you are describing (in which indexes are not updated unless a column involved in the index changes) is an optimization, Heap-Only Tuples. It's a very common optimization, but it's not guaranteed. -- -- Christophe Pettus xof@thebuild.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления