On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 09:15:59AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > But the method has the above problem. So I suggest to use whether
> > the right link points to the next adjacent page or not.
> >
> > if (opaque->btpo_next != P_NONE && opaque->btpo_next != blkno + 1
On Aug 17, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:54:20PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
But the method has the above probl
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Suppose a simple update case, for example, the accounts table in pgbench.
> The default fillfactor of btree indexes is 90%, so the leaf pages are
> fully split after we update 10-20% of tuples. But pgstatindex reports
> the fragmentation is 50% in such condition, but I thi
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hope you to write how to interpret the framgentation (and other) info
> > in README. In my understanding, I'll write "You'd better do REINDEX when
> > you see the fragmentation is greater than 50%" under the present
> > calculation method.
>
> I
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, in that way, following two conditions,
>>[1] [x] [2] [y] [3]
>> and
>>[3] [x] [2] [y] [1]
>> will be calculated as same fragmentation ratio(100%), I can't agree
>> with that, because both will generate differe
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, in that way, following two conditions,
>[1] [x] [2] [y] [3]
> and
>[3] [x] [2] [y] [1]
> will be calculated as same fragmentation ratio(100%), I can't agree
> with that, because both will generate different costs while index scan
> in th
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> But the method has the above problem. So I suggest to use whether
> the right link points to the next adjacent page or not.
>
> if (opaque->btpo_next != P_NONE && opaque->btpo_next != blkno + 1)
> stat->fragments++;
Well, in that way, following two conditions,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:54:20PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > > But the method has the above problem. So I suggest to use whether
> > > the right link
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > I think this condition should be regarded as full-fragmented,
> > but pgstatindex reports that the leaf_fragmentation is 50%.
> >
> > Presently, fragmenta
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> I think this condition should be regarded as full-fragmented,
> but pgstatindex reports that the leaf_fragmentation is 50%.
>
> Presently, fragmentation factor is computed as the code below:
>
> if (opaque->btpo_next != P_NON
Hi Nagayasu san and folks,
I have a question about pgstatindex.
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached patch has been cleaned up,
> and modified to be able to work with CVS HEAD.
Index leaf pages are ordered just after REINDEX.
[1] [2] [3]
After full-split, they will be the fol
11 matches
Mail list logo
