lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
"Robert Treat"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject
Re: [PERFORM] vacuum full
& max_fsm_pages question
Patrick,
> Sorry. I wrote PG 7.4.2 and then I erased it to write something
else and
> then forgot to add it ba
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/21/2004 10:49 Subject
AMRe: [PERFORM] vacuum full &
Patrick,
> Sorry. I wrote PG 7.4.2 and then I erased it to write something else and
> then forgot to add it back.
Odd. You shouldn't be having to re-vacuum on 7.4.
> And thanks for the Page info. I was getting frustrated and looked in the
> wrong place.
>
> So it's probably best to drop and r
uot;Robert Treat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Patrick Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] vacuum full & max_fsm_pages question
> On Tuesday 21 September 2004 00:01, Patrick Hatcher wr
On Tuesday 21 September 2004 00:01, Patrick Hatcher wrote:
> Hello.
> Couple of questions:>
> - Q1: Today I decided to do a vacuum full verbose analyze on a large table
> that has been giving me slow performance. And then I did it again. I
> noticed that after each run the values in my indexes an
Hello.
Couple of questions:
- Q1: Today I decided to do a vacuum full verbose
analyze on a large table that has been giving me slow performance. And
then I did it again. I noticed that after each run the values in my
indexes and estimate row version changed. What really got me
wond
