On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 20:56 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I just ran a vacuum verbose on the entire DB and this came out. > > > > number of page slots needed (274144) exceeds max_fsm_pages (153600) > > > > Hence, I've changed the max to 400,000 (pulled it straight out of the > > air). How does one calculate what's the number needed anyway? > > It's not simple. Every update or delete creates a "dead tuple" that > needs to be tracked by an fsm entry. So it depends on how frequently > your database is changing in between vacuum runs.
Quite a lof actually. > > In my experience, the best bet is to do vacuum verbose on a regular > basis and get a feel for what you need. Every database load is > different. autovacuum is turned on by default.. so I didn't think of any issues _might_ occur.. (or rather.. didn't think about murphy's law) > > > Another question is, based on what I've read in the archives (in my > > laptop.. No-Inet conn @ work) Since I've overran my max_FSM, I'm > > basically screwed and will have to do a vacuum verbose FULL on the > > entire DB. Crap.. > > You don't _need_ to. But it's generally a good idea to get table > bloat reduced. OK.. Vacuum verbose took 2 hours.. Vacuum full will likely take 2x that I presume. > > I'm planning to run vacuum verbose full tonight/over the weekend. (is > > this sane?) Thanks for the advice.. > > vacuum full is sane, if that's what you mean. The only problem is that > it locks tables while working on them, so you have to take into account > what other workload might be blocked while vacuum full is working, and > how long vacuum full is liable to take. It's pulling data from the master DB (it's a data mart) every 50 to 120 seconds) I presume that it's blocked on a table by table basis?? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
