Re: Autovacuum behavior
| От | Om Prakash Jaiswal |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Autovacuum behavior |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 810264764.37549.1438317867083.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Autovacuum behavior (John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Autovacuum behavior
|
| Список | pgsql-admin |
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: