On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 14:51 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> I would kindly disagree. I'm looking at a project where HOT updates >> are going to be a real performance enhancement, but I'll have to >> create a hundred or so tables ALL with fillfactor tacked on the end. > > You clearly think that adjusting fillfactor helps in all cases with HOT. > I disagree with that, else would have pushed earlier for exactly what > you suggest. In fact, I've has this exact discussion previously. How odd, because that's clearly NOT what I said. In fact I used the single "a" to describe the project I was looking at where having a default table fill factor of < 100 would be very useful. OTOH, I have stats databases that have only insert and drop child tables that would not benefit from < 100 fill factor. For a heavily updated database, where most of the updates will NOT be on indexed columns, as the ONE project I'm looking at, a default fill factor would be quite a time saver.
