From: | S Arvind <arvindwill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum ALL FULL |
Date: | 2009-06-06 23:09:40 |
Message-ID: | abf9211d0906061609q2551ed66n975b243eaa108a38@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Sorry Tom, i cant able to understand. Should i have to increse the
max_fsm_rel based on formula and re-run the vacuum command? The main reason
for vacuum for us is to increase performance of our db. Please tell value
for our kind of server(as provided in previous mail) ?
-- Arvind S
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> S Arvind <arvindwill(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So is it no use running
> > vacuumdb --all --analyze --full
> > as fsm map is full?
>
> Well, it's not of *no* use. But you'd be well advised to crank up the
> FSM size.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-06 23:12:31 | Re: Vacuum ALL FULL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-06 23:02:33 | Re: Vacuum ALL FULL |