Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Matthew T. O'Connor
Subject Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Date
Msg-id 4383882B.3040009@zeut.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1  ("Andrus" <eetasoft@online.ee>)
Responses Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
List pgsql-general
Andrus wrote:
> Jim,
>
>> Keep in mind that if analyze has never been run on a table the database
>> will assume 1000 rows, which is definately off from 122 rows.
>>
>
> autovacuum processes this tabele regularly.
> I believed that autovacuum can update the row count to be real.

I think this is a poor choice of wording.  Autovacuum frequently creates
log entries that read something like:

LOG:  autovacuum: processing database "foo"

This implies that autovacuum has done something to that database, which
may or may not be the case.  All this message really means is that
autovacuum took at look at this database to see if there was any VACUUM
or ANALYZE operations that should be performed.  I think saying
"processing" implies that some action is being taken.

Also this creates a lot of noise in the log files.  I think it would be
better to downgrade this message to a NOTICE or even a DEBUG, and
replace it with a LOG level message that states when action has taken
place against the table.

Matt



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Next
From: "Thomas F. O'Connell"
Date:
Subject: Index Administration: pg_index vs. pg_get_indexdef()