Note that a VACUUM wouldn't be able to remove the dead rows if there's a long running active query OR any idle transaction in an isolation >= Repeatable Read, tracking transactions in "pg_stat_activity" should help you eliminate/track this activity. Also, the row estimates consider the size of your table, so it isn't necessary that close estimates indicate an ANALYZE operation performed, a better way to track this would be monitoring results from "pg_stat_user_tables", tracking when was did the autovacuum/analyze last performed on this table
Hi: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Patrick B <patrickbakerbr@gmail.com> wrote: >> schemaname relname n_live_tup n_dead_tup >> ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- >> public parts 191623953 182477402 ... > Because of that the table is very slow... > When I do a select on that table it doesn't use an index, for example: > \d parts; >> "index_parts_id" btree (company_id) >> "index_parts_id_and_country" btree (company_id, country) > explain select * from parts WHERE company_id = 12; >> Seq Scan on parts (cost=0.00..6685241.40 rows=190478997 width=223) >> Filter: (company_id = 12)
You've already been directed to check table is really getting vacuumed / analyzed, but I'd like to point that if the count estimates are nearly correct that plan is good ( it's estimating getting more than 99% of the table, a seq scan tends to beat index scan easily when selecting that big part of the table, even accounting for dead tuples it's more about 50% of the table, and a seq scan is much faster PER TUPLE then an index scan ( and and index scan would likely touch every data page for that big fraction, so reading all of them sequentially and oing a quick filter is easier )). Francisco Olarte.