X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BF89DC944 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02509-04 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:10 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A799DC884 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.47.21]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IT800G52KDJIZR3@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:08:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915646061604 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15166-04 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7DC0D6061601; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:08:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:08:05 -0500 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum In-reply-to: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20060117120804.GU1408@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us References: <43CCC711.504@familyhealth.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.106 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106] X-Spam-Score: 0.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/223 X-Sequence-Number: 16701 On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Michael Riess wrote: >did you read my post? In the first part I explained why I don't want to >increase the FSM that much. Since you didn't quantify it, that wasn't much of a data point. (IOW, you'd generally have to be seriously resource constrained before the FSM would be a significant source of memory consumption--in which case more RAM would probably be a much better solution than screwing with autovacuum.) Mike Stone