number of page slots needed (1576544) exceeds max_fsm_pages (204800)]
Does this max_fsm_pages value seem OK for a 46GB database?
I've clustered all the tables that seemed to be exhibiting large amounts
of bloat.
reporting=# SELECT pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size('reporting'));
pg_size_pretty
----------------
46 GB
(1 row)
NOTICE: number of page slots needed (1576544) exceeds max_fsm_pages (204800)
HINT: Consider increasing the configuration parameter "max_fsm_pages" to a value over 1576544.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Reid Thompson <reid.thompson@ateb.com> wrote:
Does this max_fsm_pages value seem OK for a 46GB database?
I've clustered all the tables that seemed to be exhibiting large amounts
of bloat.
My big DB is about 70 on disk. I have fsm pages set to 3.4 million,
and occasionally that gets overrun. It is nearly catastrophic to us
when that happens as performance takes a serious nose dive. This is
probably the major reason switching to 8.4 is high on our list. Our
DB has a *lot* of data churn, and that makes a lot of pages with space
on them to track.
One more thing you may wish to consider is running re-index on your
tables. I found that a lot of pages with empty space were compacted
and the number of fsm entries went down significantly when I did this
last week. For me this was more important than running cluster to
pack the data tables themselves.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:43:11PM -0500, Vick Khera wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Reid Thompson <reid.thompson@ateb.com> wrote:
Does this max_fsm_pages value seem OK for a 46GB database?
I've clustered all the tables that seemed to be exhibiting large amounts
of bloat.One more thing you may wish to consider is running re-index on your
tables. I found that a lot of pages with empty space were compacted
and the number of fsm entries went down significantly when I did this
last week. For me this was more important than running cluster to
pack the data tables themselves.
It was my belief that cluster would re-build the indexes as part of the
cluster operation. Is that belief incorrect?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Vick Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Reid Thompson <reid.thompson@ateb.com> wrote:
Does this max_fsm_pages value seem OK for a 46GB database?
I've clustered all the tables that seemed to be exhibiting large amounts
of bloat.My big DB is about 70 on disk. I have fsm pages set to 3.4 million,
and occasionally that gets overrun. It is nearly catastrophic to us
We have about 2.8Million used and have it set to 10Million for the
same reason as you do.