Re: QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE table versus QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM table
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE table versus QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19520.1572704547@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE table versus QUERY: autovacuum:VACUUM table (Jason Ralph <jralph@affinitysolutions.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Jason Ralph <jralph@affinitysolutions.com> writes: > I am trying to find out if the naming convention from autovacuum does what its command line equivalent does, or at leastwhat I think it does. > QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE table versus autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE table. > I have been getting my autovacuum tuned and I have the settings where I see 2 types of queries running now and doing theirjobs. I know vacuum alone will mark dead tuples ready for use again, and analyze alone will update statistics for thequery planner. > 1. QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE table > 2. QUERY: autovacuum: VACUUM table > My question is do we need both? Some autovacuum runs will do only VACUUM on a given table, some will do only ANALYZE, and some will do both. The decisions about which of these operations are needed are related but not identical (one's based on n_dead_tup and the other on n_mod_since_analyze, plus you can set different threshold parameters to compare those to). The pg_stat_activity report of what's happening does match the command-line syntax. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: