Re: Vacuum ALL FULL

Thanks Tom Lane,
I think we must have to consider about your last mail words. But now
reducing the table is mearly impossible, but very thanks for advice , we
will try it in future.

-Arvind S

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> S Arvind <arvindwill(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So do i have to increase the max_fsm_relation based on
> (Average_no_relation
> > per db * number of db)? if so it will be very high since in our one db
> > server we have 200 db with average 800 tables in each db. What is the
> value
> > we have to give for this kind of server?
>
> About 160000.
>
> One wonders whether you shouldn't rethink your schema design. Large
> numbers of small tables usually are not a good use of SQL. (I assume
> they're small, else you'd have had serious bloat problems already from
> your undersized max_fsm_pages setting ...)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>