From: | Pallav Kalva <pkalva(at)deg(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Poor Performance on a table |
Date: | 2004-12-02 19:32:53 |
Message-ID: | 41AF6DE5.8020301@deg.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Frank,
Thanks! for the quick reply, here are my current default fsm setting .
max_fsm_pages = 20000 and max_fsm_relations = 1000
What are the appropriates settings for these parameters ? are there
any guidlines ? postgres docs doesnt give much information on setting
these values.
Thanks!
Pallav
Frank Wiles wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:11:46 -0500
>Pallav Kalva <pkalva(at)deg(dot)cc> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi ,
>>
>> I have a table in my production database which has 500k rows and
>>from the pg_class it shows the number of "relpages" of
>>around 750K for this table, the same table copied to a test database
>>shows "relpages" as 35k. I run vacuumdb on the whole
>>database (not on the table individually but the whole database) daily.
>>
>>I think because of this most of queries are slowing down which used to
>>
>>run much faster before.
>> Is there any way to fix this problem ?
>>
>>
>
> Try a VACUUM FULL, this will clean up unused space. You might also
> want to adjust your free space map so that you don't have to do FULL
> vacuums as often ( or at all ). It is controlled by max_fsm_pages
> and max_fsm_relations.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
> http://www.wiles.org
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-02 19:36:59 | Re: Poor Performance on a table |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-02 19:28:17 | Re: [PERFORM] scalability issues on win32 |