Re: Memory taken by FSM_relations

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Memory taken by FSM_relations
Date: 2003-02-24 19:34:00
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0302241233340.14019-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Joe Conway wrote:

> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Further, Joe Conway gave me a guesstimate of 6k per max_fsm_pages which seems
> > rather high ... in fact, the default settings for this value (10000) would
> > swamp the memory used by the rest of Postgres.
>
> I don't recall (and cannot find in my sent mail) ever making that
> guesstimate. Can you provide some context?

If I remember right, it was 6 BYTES per max fsm pages... not kbytes.
That sounds about right anyway.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2003-02-24 19:35:34 Re: Memory taken by FSM_relations
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-02-24 19:25:38 Re: Memory taken by FSM_relations