Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On 5/21/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
>
> Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
> from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
>
>
I looked at the patch. Not that I am very comfortable with this part
of the code, but nevertheless here are my comments:


Another problem that I noticed with the patch is that it disregards
the fillfactor while inserting the tuples. ISTM that this is a correct
behavior when a tuple is being inserted in the block to preserve cluster
ordering. But when the tuple is being inserted as a normal operation,
IMO we should respect the fillfactor.

The easiest way to reproduce this is to insert tuples sorted on the
cluster index key.

Actually it does respect the fillfactor when the block suggested by indexam is full. When you insert tuples sorted on the cluster index key, the suggested page after the first tuple on the new page is always the last page. Try inserting in random order instead.

IOW it's working as designed. But maybe it's not the desired behavior. Should we have a special case and always respect the fillfactor when inserting to the last page of the heap?

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to