On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > OK, I'll think about how to do that more efficiently. The smaller > incremental improvement isn't surprising, because in this example the > index would still be 90-something MB if it had no free space at all, > so there's going to be decreasing returns from any additional work > to avoid wasted free space. But if we can do it cheaply, this does > suggest that using pages in order by free space is of value.
Tom, are you planning to do something about this patch yet this CommitFest, or leave it until later? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
