Re: Autovacuum behavior

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John Scalia
Тема Re: Autovacuum behavior
Дата
Msg-id CABzCKRDsZy9=8R9CBBL=iEN9Rm_cYH2jdTbYjeYce98YvS7-Sg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Autovacuum behavior  (Om Prakash Jaiswal <op12om@yahoo.co.in>)
Список pgsql-admin
Thanks OM, I'll try setting that.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Om Prakash Jaiswal <op12om@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
track_count = on;
It is missing.

Regards
Om Prakash



On Friday, 31 July 2015 12:21 AM, John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi all,

The autovacuum settings for a 9.4.2 database are shown below, I'm not absolutely certain if I missed anything:

autovacuum = on
log_autovacuum_min_duration = 100
autovacuum_max_workers = 15
autovacuum_naptime = 10min
#autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 50
autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 80
autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.1
autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.2
autovacuum_freeze_max_age = 100000000
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 20ms
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = -1
vacuum_freeze_min_age =   5000000
vacuum_freeze_table_age = 2500000


But, when I examine pg_stat_all_tables, I'm seeing a lot of tables where n_dead_tup is still a lot greater than n_live_tup. Mind you, these are all fairly small tables. I'm also seeing that the last_autovacuum ran about 11:22 AM CDT this morning.I would think the tables where there were no live tuples and a bunch of dead_tuples would have been vacuumed after 11:22 AM to clear the dead ones. Am I missing something?
--
Jay



В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Renato Oliveira
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] How Many PG_Locks are considered too many
Следующее
От: Elías David
Дата:
Сообщение: Performance differences between fdw and view+fdw