Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX

From: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX
Date: 2006-07-08 08:13:16
Message-ID: 20060708081316.GB6396@uio.no
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-07-08 09:16:46 Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-07-08 03:24:24 Re: VACUUM vs. REINDEX