Re: reading vacuum verbosity

"Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> Below are 3 snippets from 3 successive vacuums on a table
> with ~284K rows which receives many many UPDATEs and a few
> INSERTs (there were also a few runs of ANALYZE in between
> these VACUUMs):

> INFO: Pages 22652: Changed 4, Empty 0; Tup 284139: Vac 927, Keep 0, UnUsed 936.
> INFO: Pages 22652: Changed 7, Empty 0; Tup 284151: Vac 423, Keep 0, UnUsed 1559.
> INFO: Pages 22652: Changed 4, Empty 0; Tup 284155: Vac 221, Keep 0, UnUsed 1823.

That looks okay to me considering that the physical table size (Pages)
isn't growing.

> 1) Do the increasing values for "UnUsed" indicate leakage?

I'm not sure. It seems a bit odd ... could you track this over a longer
interval? An unused tuple slot will only take 4 bytes so it might take
awhile to see any real consequence.

> Should I count system tables when setting max_fsm_relations?

Yes.

> 3) Should I count index relations when setting max_fsm_relations?

As of 7.4, yes.

regards, tom lane