Re: Calculation for Max_FSM_pages : Any rules of thumb?

From: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
To: Ow Mun Heng <Ow(dot)Mun(dot)Heng(at)wdc(dot)com>
Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Calculation for Max_FSM_pages : Any rules of thumb?
Date: 2007-11-19 13:24:08
Message-ID: 20071119082408.2ffa194f.wmoran@potentialtech.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

In response to Ow Mun Heng <Ow(dot)Mun(dot)Heng(at)wdc(dot)com>:
>
> Even with the regular vacuuming and even a vacuum full ( on my test DB)
> I still see that perhaps something is wrong (from the below)
>
> (I got this gem from the mailling list archives)
> hmxmms=> SELECT
> c.relname,
> c.reltuples::bigint as rowcnt,
> pg_stat_get_tuples_inserted(c.oid) AS inserted,
> pg_stat_get_tuples_updated(c.oid) AS updated,
> pg_stat_get_tuples_deleted(c.oid) AS deleted
> FROM pg_class c
> WHERE c.relkind = 'r'::"char"
> GROUP BY c.oid, c.relname, c.reltuples
> HAVING pg_stat_get_tuples_updated(c.oid) +
> pg_stat_get_tuples_deleted(c.oid) > 1000
> ORDER BY pg_stat_get_tuples_updated(c.oid) +
> pg_stat_get_tuples_deleted(c.oid) DESC;
> relname | rowcnt | inserted | updated | deleted
> -----------------------+----------+----------+---------+----------
> tst_r | 11971691 | 0 | 0 | 22390528 <--
> pg_statistic | 1465 | 280 | 7716 | 153
> dr_ns | 2305571 | 1959 | 0 | 1922
> pg_attribute | 3787 | 1403 | 184 | 1292
>
> No matter how many times I vacuum/full the deleted number still doesn't
> go down.

Are you sure you're interpreting that number correctly? I took it to
mean a counter of the number of delete operations since server start.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Allison 2007-11-19 13:26:20 IP addresses
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2007-11-19 12:03:01 Re: Composite types for composite primary/foreign keys?