Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There are 2 parts to my question.

  1. Is there a way of specifying the initial size of a database in PostgreSQL?
  2. If there isn't, how do you deal with fragmentation when the database grows over time?

I've recently migrated from MSSQL to Postgres, and one of the things we did in the MSSQL world when creating a database was to specify the initial size of the database and transaction log. This reduced fragmentation and increased performance, especially if the "normal" size of the database is known beforehand.

The performance of my database drops as the size grows. For example, the workload I'm putting it through normally takes 10 minutes. As the database grows, this time increases. Doing a VACUUM, VACUUM FULL and VACUUM FULL ANALYSE do not appear to solve the issue. What does solve the performance problem is stopping the database, de-fragmenting the drive and then doing a VACUUM FULL ANALYSE takes the performance of my test back to the original 10 minutes. This leads me to suspect that fragmentation is what's causing me pain.

I've not been able to find any reference to reserving tablespace/database space in Postgres. Either I'm using the wrong terminology and thus finding nothing, or there is a different way of mitigating filesystem fragmentation in Postgres.

Any pointers?

The Solution

The supplied answers helped confirm what I'd begun to suspect. PostgreSQL stores the database across multiple files and this is what allows the database to grow without worry of fragmentation. The default behaviour is to pack these files to the brim with table data, which is good for tables that rarely change but is bad for tables that a frequently updated.

PostgreSQL utilizes MVCC to provide concurrent access to table data. Under this scheme, each update creates a new version of the row that was updated (this could be via time stamp or version number, who knows?). The old data is not immediately deleted, but marked for deletion. The actual deletion occurs when a VACUUM operation is performed.

How does this relate to the fill factor? The table default fill factor of 100 fully packs the table pages, which in turn means that there is no space within the table page to hold updated rows, i.e. updated rows will be placed in a different table page from the original row. This is bad for performance, as my experience shows. As my summary tables get updated very frequently (up to 1500 rows/sec), I opted to set a fill factor of 20, i.e. 20% of the table will be for inserted row data and 80% for update data. While this may seem excessive, the large amount of space reserved for updated rows means that the updated rows stay within the same page as the original and there's a the table page isn't full by the time the autovacuum daemon runs to remove obsolete rows.

To "fix" my database, I did the following.

  1. Set the fill factor of my summary tables to 20. You can do this at creation time by passing a parameter to CREATE TABLE, or after the fact via ALTER TABLE. I issued the following plpgsql command: ALTER TABLE "my_summary_table" SET (fillfactor = 20);
  2. Issued a VACUUM FULL, as this writes a completely new version of the table file and thus by implication writes a new table file with the new fill factor.

Rerunning my tests, I see no performance degradation even when the database is as large as I need it to be with many millions of rows.

TL;DR - File fragmentation wasn't the cause, it was table space fragmentation. This is mitigated by tweaking the table's fill factor to suit your particular use case.

share|improve this question
I doubt that it's the file resizing operation. My guess is that maintaining the indexes is what's slowing down the inserts. There is a current discussion on the PG mailing list regarding this (though without a solution):… – a_horse_with_no_name Jul 17 '12 at 16:35
up vote 2 down vote accepted
  1. No the only thing close to that is when you compile the server with the --with-segsize switch, this might help if your table is taking up more space than a gig and your file system can handle a single file being over a gig. If your inserting 20 gigs it will have to create 20 files if you don't use this switch. If your file system can handle a file over a gig you can just set it to a large value most likely see some benefit, worst case a small benefit.

  2. Take a look at CLUSTER FILLFACTOR,

Note that FILLFACTOR can be applied to both tables and indexes.

share|improve this answer

If your problem is file fragmentation then no, there isn't. In Postgres each table gets it's own file, or set of files if it uses TOAST, in the file system. This differs from, say, Oracle (or apparently MS-SQL) where you create pre-sized tablespace files to drop your tables into-- although even there you could have file system fragmentation issues if the tablespace files get extended or the file system is badly fragmented to start with.

As to your second question... I have no idea how to would cleanly deal with the file system fragmentation as MS-Windows is the only OS where I've experienced fragmentation issues and I don't run MS-Windows any more than absolutely need be these days. Perhaps placing the database files on their own disk(s) could mitigate that to some extent.

share|improve this answer
Keep in mind you have internal PostgreSQL database fragmentation and you have external file system fragmentation. Internal I believe can be mitigated with VACUUM and using CLUSTERS and FILLFACTOR. File system can be handled by running a defrag for the given file system. And Linux/Unix file systems can become fragmented some times depending on work load and the type of file system. – GoatWalker Jul 17 '12 at 15:28
File system fragmentation is not really a big issue with NTFS nowadays. – a_horse_with_no_name Jul 17 '12 at 16:36
I thought NTFS was notorious for it? My workstation machine gets fragged pretty good, the only thing keeping it under control is a scheduled defrag that Windows7 runs on a daily basis. – GoatWalker Jul 18 '12 at 15:03

There is another thing in play that hasn't entered your equations yet: HOT update. You can find more details and links in related answers here or here or here or here.

Setting fillfactor to as low as 20 does seem excessive. It bloats the table to up to five times its size. If HOT updates work, you shouldn't have to go that low - normally.

There are exceptions: HOT updates can only reuse dead tuples from previous transactions directly, not from the same or concurrent ones. Therefore, heavy concurrent load can warrant such a low setting.

If you have big updates, changing large portions of the table at once, you might want to split them up in a couple of chunks, ideally only changing as many rows at once as fit locally on the data page. But that's hard to estimate and regulate.

Note that HOT updates only work when the changed columns are not involved in indexes in any way (neither as data nor as condition in a partial index). You might be blocking HOT updates with indexes on updated columns. If those are expendable, you might get better overall performance without them.

Finally, you can set auto-vacuum parameters per table. You could target the heavily updated table specifically with aggressive settings allowing a somewhat tighter packing of rows than only fillfactor 20.

share|improve this answer
Interesting stuff, I'll have a read of it and try to get a better understanding of what HOT updates mean to my system. – CadentOrange Jul 26 '12 at 10:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.