>
> There is no such thing as a lopsided B-tree, because a B-tree is by
> definition self-balancing. Perhaps that answers your original question.
>
You do incur the cost of rebalancing often and the cost/frequency/extent is
related to fill factor.
>
>
On 06.07.21 14:19, Ron wrote:
On 7/6/21 4:52 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 21:35, Ron wrote:
The legacy RDBMS which I used to manage has a tool for analyzing (not
in the Postgresql meaning of the word) an index, and displaying a
histogram of how many layers deep various
On 7/6/21 4:52 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 21:35, Ron wrote:
The legacy RDBMS which I used to manage has a tool for analyzing (not in the
Postgresql meaning of the word) an index, and displaying a histogram of how
many layers deep various parts of an index are. Using that
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 21:35, Ron wrote:
> The legacy RDBMS which I used to manage has a tool for analyzing (not in the
> Postgresql meaning of the word) an index, and displaying a histogram of how
> many layers deep various parts of an index are. Using that histogram, you
> can tell whether
Server: RDS Postgresql 12.5
Client: Vanilla Postgresql 12.5
Like most systems, we have lots of tables indexed on sequences. Thus, all
new keys are inserted into the "lower right hand corner" of the b-tree.
The legacy RDBMS which I used to manage has a tool for analyzing (*not* in
the
