Re: Autovacuum behavior - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Om Prakash Jaiswal
Subject Re: Autovacuum behavior
Date
Msg-id 810264764.37549.1438317867083.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Autovacuum behavior  (John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Autovacuum behavior  (John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>)
List 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


pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: John Scalia
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum behavior
Next
From: Renato Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] How Many PG_Locks are considered too many