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 1262A9DC959 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:50:40 -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 41938-09 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:50:43 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00579DC884 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:50:36 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 7941030F0A; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:50:41 +0100 (MET) From: Michael Riess X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:50:38 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <43CCC711.504@familyhealth.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) In-Reply-To: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.064 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064] X-Spam-Score: 0.064 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/235 X-Sequence-Number: 16713 Well, I think that the documentation is not exactly easy to understand. I always wondered why there are no examples for common postgresql configurations. All I know is that the default configuration seems to be too low for production use. And while running postgres I get no hints as to which setting needs to be increased to improve performance. I have no chance to see if my FSM settings are too low other than to run vacuum full verbose in psql, pipe the result to a text file and grep for some words to get a somewhat comprehensive idea of how much unused space there is in my system. Don't get me wrong - I really like PostgreSQL and it works well in my application. But somehow I feel that it might run much better ... about the FSM: You say that increasing the FSM is fairly cheap - how should I know that? >> did you read my post? In the first part I explained why I don't want >> to increase the FSM that much. > > No, you didn't. You explained *that* you thought you didn't want to > increase the FSM. You didn't explain why. > > FSM expansion comes fairly cheap ...