From: | "Michael G(dot) Martin" <michael(at)vpmonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: UnUsed Tuple Space Huge |
Date: | 2002-06-12 22:37:11 |
Message-ID: | 3D07CD17.5060903@vpmonline.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks Tom,
That's what I was beginning to think from reading. I just wasn't sure
of the correlation between MAX_FSM_PAGES and the actual pages occupied
by the table after a full vacuum. 1:1 ?? Any general rules?
Thanks,
Michael
Tom Lane wrote:
>"Michael G. Martin" <michael(at)vpmonline(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>VACUUM verbose symbol_Data;
>>NOTICE: --Relation symbol_data--
>>NOTICE: Pages 767990: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 21595176: Vac 0, Keep 0,
>>
>>
> ^^^^^^
>
>
>>UnUsed 16560877.
>> Total CPU 61.94s/6.94u sec elapsed 179.25 sec.
>>
>>
>
>That seems to be a couple orders of magnitude above the default size of
>the free space map (10000 pages IIRC). How big is your database in
>total? You definitely need to increase MAX_FSM_PAGES in
>postgresql.conf, but I can't tell how far on the basis of this one
>datapoint.
>
>You will probably want to do a VACUUM FULL to clean out some of the free
>space and then see where you really stand on number of pages.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael G. Martin | 2002-06-12 23:14:46 | Re: UnUsed Tuple Space Huge |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-12 22:32:26 | Re: UnUsed Tuple Space Huge |