Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... - Mailing list pgsql-www

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Date
Msg-id 20041103201625.S82047@ganymede.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  (Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  (Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>)
Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-www
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> <snip>
>> Do a vacuum full analyze on the two databases being called, and load time
>> went from 2.4sec to .46sec:
>
> Hmmmm, is there any chance your Free Space Map settings aren't high enough?

I posted once asking about that, but got no responses :)

Here is a vacuum verbose on gborg's database:

INFO:  free space map: 1000 relations, 7454 pages stored; 23072 total pages needed
DETAIL:  Allocated FSM size: 1000 relations + 20000 pages = 178 kB shared memory.
and this is portal:

INFO:  free space map: 1000 relations, 7425 pages stored; 23024 total pages needed
DETAIL:  Allocated FSM size: 1000 relations + 20000 pages = 178 kB shared memory.

so, you tell me ... should I increase them?  I haven't been able to find
any docs that talk about this :(

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

pgsql-www by date:

Previous
From: "Gavin M. Roy"
Date:
Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...