From: | "Phoenix Kiula" <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql performance in production environment |
Date: | 2007-08-19 13:32:18 |
Message-ID: | e373d31e0708190632k3ac64ebbha3d4136c3870376c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 19/08/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Phoenix Kiula wrote:
...snip....
> There should be a line like this at the end of a "VACUUM VERBOSE" command:
> INFO: free space map contains 33 pages in 74 relations
> DETAIL: A total of 1184 page slots are in use (including overhead).
> 1184 page slots are required to track all free space.
> Current limits are: 153600 page slots, 1000 relations, using 965 kB.
> VACUUM
>
I ran the vacuum analyze verbose again, and did not see anything like
that. Should I run a vacuum alone?
In any case, in your example, which number would I take note of, and
derive the max_fsm_pages from?
I do notice this in my own output:
There were 2959498 unused item pointers.
133616 pages contain useful free space.
0 pages are entirely empty.
Does this mean I should have over 133,616 in my max_fsm_pages. Should
I set it up at 150,000 for example?
Secondly, the max_fsm_relations -- if I have about 150 "relations" in
my database (relations as per PGSQL lingo) then can this figure be,
say, 200? Or does this have to match max_fsm_pages?
Many thanks
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Phoenix Kiula | 2007-08-19 13:37:25 | Re: Postgresql performance in production environment |
Previous Message | Henrik | 2007-08-19 13:26:50 | Re: query large amount of data in c++ using libpq |