Translating with DrWatson… this can take a few seconds the first time.
This is a genuine, complex translation. DrWatson protects commands, error codes, and log output while naturally translating the surrounding text. It’s translated once and saved.
Jay Walters, on IDS 7.30 TC7 with FILLFACTOR at the default 90, saw oncheck -cT report index leaf nodes only about 60% full, and wanted them denser to save memory. David Kosenko explained FILLFACTOR applies only at index creation and nodes average about 75% full on volatile tables; recent splits can leave nodes near 50%. He suggested rebuilding with a lower fillfactor (about 75%) to reduce splits.
Auto-generated by Claude from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Jay Walters — — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)
I'm running IDS 7.30 TC7 and I've got my FILLFACTOR set to the default
of 90, but when I poke around in some of my indexes with oncheck -cT I
see that the leaf nodes can often be 60% full or so. Some of these
indexes include varchar columns and others are as simple as two integer
columns.
I've checked the formulas in the Performance Book, etc and they seem to
indicate that I should get tighter packing of index nodes than this.
Any ideas from the experts?
Cheers
↪ replying to Jay Walters
David Kosenko — — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)
On Tue, 04 May 1999 21:20:40 -0400, Jay Walters
<jwalters@computer.org> wrote:
>I'm running IDS 7.30 TC7 and I've got my FILLFACTOR set to the default
>of 90, but when I poke around in some of my indexes with oncheck -cT I
>see that the leaf nodes can often be 60% full or so. Some of these
>indexes include varchar columns and others are as simple as two integer
>columns.
>
>I've checked the formulas in the Performance Book, etc and they seem to
>indicate that I should get tighter packing of index nodes than this.
FILLFACTOR is only significant at index-creation time, i.e. the
FILLFACTOR is not maintained over the life of the index. Over time,
index nodes will average about 75% full no matter what you do
(assuming a volatile table, of course). Only option to "guarantee"
denser packing is to rebuild regularly (which isn't likely worth the
bother).
If a leaf node has recently split, it may well be down to almost 50%
full; as additional rows are added, these should start to fill up.
You should not be interested in the fullness of any individual index
pages, as it is rather insignificant in the context of the entire
index.
Dave
↪ replying to David Kosenko
Jay Walters — — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)
I suppose what bothers me about having the leaf nodes 60% full is that I
need to keep these specific indexes in memory, and 1% = 1MB on this index.
While I've got 2GB in my machine, spending 40MB of that on just this index
holding empty space doesn't seem like the most efficient thing I've ever
done.
David Kosenko wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 1999 21:20:40 -0400, Jay Walters
> <jwalters@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >I'm running IDS 7.30 TC7 and I've got my FILLFACTOR set to the default
> >of 90, but when I poke around in some of my indexes with oncheck -cT I
> >see that the leaf nodes can often be 60% full or so. Some of these
> >indexes include varchar columns and others are as simple as two integer
> >columns.
> >
> >I've checked the formulas in the Performance Book, etc and they seem to
> >indicate that I should get tighter packing of index nodes than this.
>
> FILLFACTOR is only significant at index-creation time, i.e. the
> FILLFACTOR is not maintained over the life of the index. Over time,
> index nodes will average about 75% full no matter what you do
> (assuming a volatile table, of course). Only option to "guarantee"
> denser packing is to rebuild regularly (which isn't likely worth the
> bother).
>
> If a leaf node has recently split, it may well be down to almost 50%
> full; as additional rows are added, these should start to fill up.
> You should not be interested in the fullness of any individual index
> pages, as it is rather insignificant in the context of the entire
> index.
>
> Dave
↪ replying to Jay Walters
David Kosenko — — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)
On Thu, 06 May 1999 08:51:32 -0400, Jay Walters
<jwalters@computer.org> wrote:
>I suppose what bothers me about having the leaf nodes 60% full is that I
>need to keep these specific indexes in memory, and 1% = 1MB on this index.
>While I've got 2GB in my machine, spending 40MB of that on just this index
>holding empty space doesn't seem like the most efficient thing I've ever
>done.
You could rebuild the indexes using a lower fillfactor that you had
originally (say 75%). This would allow more room for gowth w/o
splits, while being more full than the 60% you are seeing.
Dave
We use strictly necessary cookies to make this site work. With your
consent we’d also use optional cookies for analytics and marketing. You can accept all,
reject all, or choose. Read our Cookie Policy.