On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's all about the size of your tables. If you've got 1 table with > 100k rows that's updated a lot then an fsm of 100k is likely > reasonable, assuming you've got autovac keeping things in check. Got > 4G rows but none are ever updated, then you don't need much if any > fsm. > > If you've got 40M rows and 10% are updated each day, then it's likely > you'll want 4M fsm entries avaialble for those dead rows. > > I think that as long as you're not using a huge amount of shared > memory it's nothing to worry about much, as long as it's not too > small. We had to go to 1Million fsm entries because we routinely have > 400k to 600k dead rows in our db at work.
That's why I said - go for whatever vacuum suggests you on production, with assumption that db is vacuum regularly. -- GJ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
