Gregory Stark wrote: > "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 10:02 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>> How about just using MaxHeapTuplesPerPage? With the default 8K block > >>> size, it's not that much more than 200, but makes the above gripes > >>> completely go away. That seems like the safest option at this point. > >> > >> It would be much better to use a value for each table. Any constant > >> value will be sub-optimal in many cases. > > > > Allocating extra memory doesn't usually do much harm, as long as you > > don't actually use it. The reason we're now limiting it is to avoid Out > > Of Memory errors if you're running with overcommit turned off, and > > autovacuum triggers a vacuum on multiple tables at the same time. > > For reference, MaxHeapTuplesPerPage on an 8k block is 291. If there are any > columns in your tuples (meaning they're not either HOT updates which have been > pruned or rows with 8 or fewer columns all of which are null) then the most > you can have is 255 rows.
How about we change it to MaxHeapTuplesPerPage for now. That closes all complaints in this thread. Later we can think about better ways of doing the whole thing, like using non-lossy tidbitmaps. -- Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/ "Para tener más hay que desear menos" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly