From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pallav Kalva <pkalva(at)deg(dot)cc> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Poor Performance on a table |
Date: | 2004-12-02 20:10:49 |
Message-ID: | 702.1102018249@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Pallav Kalva <pkalva(at)deg(dot)cc> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another likely problem is that you
>> need to increase the FSM settings (how big is your whole database?)
>>
> Yes, you are right this table is heavily updated, the whole database
> size is of 1.5 gigs, right now i have default fsm settings how much
> should i increase max_fsm_pages and max_fsm_relations to ?
A lot --- factor of 10 at least. Try "vacuum verbose" and look at the
last couple lines of output.
>> VACUUM FULL will fix the immediate problem. You might well find CLUSTER
>> to be a faster alternative, though.
> How does CLUSTER benefit me ?
It'll probably take less time to rebuild the table. VACUUM FULL is
really optimized for the case of moving a relatively small fraction
of the table around, but it sounds like you need a complete rebuild.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2004-12-02 23:03:48 | Re: Normalization or Performance |
Previous Message | Pallav Kalva | 2004-12-02 19:54:19 | Re: Poor Performance on a table |