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 On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > S Arvind <arvindw...@gmail.com> writes: > > So do i have to increase the max_fsm_relation based on > (Average_no_relation > > 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? > > About 160000. > > 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 >
