Re: Vacuum verbose output?
От | Vivek Khera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vacuum verbose output? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | x7lm15gqlz.fsf@onceler.kciLink.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Vacuum verbose output? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: TL> 100 is definitely too small for max_fsm_relations; we've bumped that TL> default to 1000 for the next release. Given that you've got a TL> nearly-100k-page table, 10000 for max_fsm_pages is probably much too TL> small also. >> What are the implications/effects of increasing them? TL> Shared memory usage gets bigger. I think the max_fsm_pages multiplier TL> is 6 bytes per slot, so you could make it a million, or ten, without TL> stressing modern machines. I'd try 1000/1000000 for starters. Just a followup to this tip, Tom... I implemented this change last week (set max_fsm_relations = 500000), during my switchover from RAID5 to RAID10. After my dump/reload and vacuum analyze, things settled down to a good clip. And my nightly vacuum analyze runs have held to a pretty constant time. Usually after a full vacuum or reload the nightly vacuums start taking longer after about 4 or 5 days. (I also vacuum some tables hourly, every few hours, etc. depending on activity). So basically, this one optimization has significantly improved my disk usage by not making so many empty pages, and keeps performance good by not having sparse tables. My largest table has 115M rows in it (two integers and a char(4)). Thanks for the tip! -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: