Re: Autovacuum behavior
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.RegardsOm PrakashOn 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 = onlog_autovacuum_min_duration = 100autovacuum_max_workers = 15autovacuum_naptime = 10min#autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 50autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 80autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.1autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.2autovacuum_freeze_max_age = 100000000autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 20msautovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = -1vacuum_freeze_min_age = 5000000vacuum_freeze_table_age = 2500000But, 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: