On Friday May 7 2004 12:23, Ed L. wrote:
> On Friday May 7 2004 12:20, Ed L. wrote:
> > 1) I'm inclined to set this to handle as large a DB footprint as will
> > be in the coming year or two, so maybe 3X what it is now. What is the
> > impact/cost of setting max_fsm_pages at, say, 3M for an 8GB footprint?
> > (3 x 8GB/8K)
>
> Ok, so I see 40B per, so setting it to 3M ==> 3M * 40 = 120MB of
> additional RAM usage for this? Any other impacts with which to be
> concerned?
Sorry, I see that's *6B* per, so setting it to 3M ==> 18MB, which is trivial
for the benefit. Any other concerns in setting this too high?