| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Chris Hoover" <revoohc(at)gmail(dot)com>, "William Scott Jordan" <wsjordan(at)brownpapertickets(dot)com>, "Jeff Frost" <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX |
| Date: | 2006-07-08 03:24:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200607072024.25142.jd@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> William,
>
> 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.
>
> max_fsm_pages 500000
> max_fsm_relations 5000
>
> This should provide PostgreSQL with enough space to work. You still might
> need to run one more vacuum full once you change the setting so that you
> can recover the space that was lost due to your fsm begin to small.
Yes he will need to run a vacuum full but I actually doubt he needs to
increase his max_fsm_pages that much, he just needs to vacuum more.
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2006-07-08 08:13:16 | Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX |
| Previous Message | Chris Hoover | 2006-07-08 01:28:52 | Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX |