Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX
Date
Msg-id 20060708081316.GB6396@uio.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX  ("Chris Hoover" <revoohc@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>)
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:28:52PM -0400, Chris Hoover wrote:
> You need to increase your fsm settings.  The database is telling you it is
> trying to store 177K+ pages, but you have only provided it with 20K.  Since
> these pages are cheap, I would set your fsm up with at least the following.

While we're at it, is there a good reason why we simply aren't upping the FSM
defaults? It seems like a lot of people are being bitten by it, and adding
more pages and relations is as you say cheap...

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX
Next
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Date:
Subject: Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX