scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> writes:
>>
>>>Was this true for some previous version? I could have swore I read somewhere
>>>that vacuum_mem had to be set high enough or vacuum wouldn't be able to clean
>>>everything up (aside from anything locked in transactions).
>>
>>Nope, never been the case.
>>
>>>Is performance the only reason for increasing vacuum_mem?
>>
>>Yes
>
> Maybe Bill's thinking of the fsm settings and regular vacuums and the
> limitations on how many tuples can be reclaimed by regular vacuuming being
> tied to fsm settings?
It's very likely that's where my confusion stemmed from, Scott.
Thanks for the pointer, I think I can clear up _all_ of my misunderstandings
now.
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
