Re: Vacuum ALL FULL
| От | S Arvind |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Vacuum ALL FULL |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | abf9211d0906061628gb79947eg2a200f83b86a8055@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Vacuum ALL FULL (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
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
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@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
S Arvind <arvindwill@gmail.com> writes:> So do i have to increase the max_fsm_relation based on (Average_no_relationAbout 160000.
> 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?
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@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: