Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
От | Cedric Dufour (Cogito Ergo Soft) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | NDBBIFNBODNADCAOFDOAMEEPCEAA.cedric.dufour@cogito-ergo-soft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Andrew > Sullivan > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 13:59 > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [GENERAL] Upgrade to dual processor machine? > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:47:23AM +0100, Cedric Dufour (Cogito > Ergo Soft) wrote: > > Is there any setting in the conf file that is related to this VACUUM and > > dead tuples issue ? Could the "free-space map" settings be > related (I never > > understood what were these settings) ? > > Yes. That's what those settings are. > The 'Runtime configuration / General operation' part of the doc is quite short on the subject. Is there any other places to look for more details on this FSM ? What policy should drive changes to the FSM settings ? I guess allowing larger FSM values might improve UPDATE performance (require VACUUM less often) but consume RAM that may be more useful elsewhere. Am I right ? Has any one made experience on that matter and what conclusion were drawn ? In other words, shall we try to alter this FSM settings for better perfomance or is it better to stick to a regular (shortly timed) VACUUM scenario ? Cedric
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: