In single server(4gb ram 2 core 2 duo), which design is good for
performance?
1) single installation for 200 db with 800 tables/db
or
2) Two installation (instance) running on different port with each
handling 100 db.
Which of this design is good for postgres where our goal is high
perfor
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 wrote:
> S Arvind writes:
> > So do i have to increase t
S Arvind 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 16
Sorry Tom, i cant able to understand. Should i have to increse the
max_fsm_rel based on formula and re-run the vacuum command? The main reason
for vacuum for us is to increase performance of our db. Please tell value
for our kind of server(as provided in previous mail) ?
-- Arvind S
On Sun, Jun 7
S Arvind writes:
> So is it no use running
> vacuumdb --all --analyze --full
> as fsm map is full?
Well, it's not of *no* use. But you'd be well advised to crank up the
FSM size.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql
Thanks Tom,
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?
-Arvind S
On Sun, J
So is it no use running
vacuumdb --all --analyze --full
as fsm map is full?
-Arvind S
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:24 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> Thanks Tom,
> 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 on
S Arvind writes:
> But there nearly only 300 tables in that db. Is the free space map is per
> DB or for all DB. Can i know the reason of this problem?
It's across all DBs in the installation.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performa
should i have to increase max_fsm_relations more. If yes why i have to ?
Since number of relation is less only.
--Arvind S
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:06 AM, S Arvind wrote:
> Found a notice after completing the
> vacuumdb -p 5433 -- all --analyze --full -v
> max_fsm_relation = 1400 in postgre
Found a notice after completing the
vacuumdb -p 5433 -- all --analyze --full -v
max_fsm_relation = 1400 in postgresql.conf
Thou all our 50 db individually have less then 1400 relation , when it
completes , there was NOTICE that increase the max_fsm_relation.
INFO: free space map contains 10344 p
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 21:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But, we're not always real clever about selectivity. Sometimes you
> have to fake the planner out, as discussed here.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2009-06/msg00023.php
>
> Actually, I had to do this today on a prod
11 matches
Mail list logo
