| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mikeb(at)netnation(dot)com |
| Cc: | Ron Snyder <snyder(at)roguewave(dot)com>, Tzvetan Tzankov <ceco(at)noxis(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: disk space usage enlarging despite vacuuming |
| Date: | 2003-05-20 17:13:00 |
| Message-ID: | 29967.1053450780@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Mike Benoit <mikeb(at)netnation(dot)com> writes:
> I assume your talking about the MAX_FSM_RELATIONS setting in
> postgresql.conf?
> What are the drawbacks to setting this too high?
You waste space in shared memory. IIRC the multiplier is about 50 bytes
per FSM_RELATION slot, so setting it to 1000 costs you ~50K ... hardly
enough to sneeze at anymore.
> Currently MAX_FSM_RELATIONS is set to 10,000.
Well, that's half a meg, which might be more than you care to waste
(certainly the space would be more usefully spent on FSM_PAGES slots).
Unless you're planning a vast expansion of number of tables or
databases, I would think 1000 would do ya.
> Where does MAX_FSM_PAGES fall in to this?
RELATIONS is the number of tables to track in FSM. PAGES is the total
number of pages to track (across all tables). You want to be sure you
can track all the pages that have useful amounts of free space in them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-20 17:19:06 | Re: pg newbie stumped on sequences! |
| Previous Message | Ben Joyce | 2003-05-20 17:06:18 | Re: pg newbie stumped on sequences! |