Thread: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs

Hi,

Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables explicitly mention
that they don't include VACUUM FULL ("not counting VACUUM FULL"), I think
we should add the same clarification to the description of total_vacuum_time.
This field also excludes VACUUM FULL, and without this note, users might
mistakenly think the time spent on VACUUM FULL is included. Thought?

         <structfield>total_vacuum_time</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
        </para>
        <para>
-       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds.
+       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds
+       (not counting <command>VACUUM FULL</command>).
         (This includes the time spent sleeping due to cost-based delays.)
        </para></entry>
       </row>

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation

Hi,

Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables explicitly mention
that they don't include VACUUM FULL ("not counting VACUUM FULL"), I think
we should add the same clarification to the description of total_vacuum_time.
This field also excludes VACUUM FULL, and without this note, users might
mistakenly think the time spent on VACUUM FULL is included. Thought?

        <structfield>total_vacuum_time</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
       </para>
       <para>
-       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds.
+       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds
+       (not counting <command>VACUUM FULL</command>).
        (This includes the time spent sleeping due to cost-based delays.)
       </para></entry>
      </row>

On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables explicitly mention
>> that they don't include VACUUM FULL ("not counting VACUUM FULL"), I think
>> we should add the same clarification to the description of total_vacuum_time.
>> This field also excludes VACUUM FULL, and without this note, users might
>> mistakenly think the time spent on VACUUM FULL is included. Thought?
>>
>>         <structfield>total_vacuum_time</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
>>        </para>
>>        <para>
>> -       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds.
>> +       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds
>> +       (not counting <command>VACUUM FULL</command>).
>>         (This includes the time spent sleeping due to cost-based delays.)
>>        </para></entry>
>>       </row>
>
>
>  Makes sense.  Our naming this table rewrite vacuum full does confuse people into thinking it is related to vacuum.
>

+1 for this change, but I think we should also update
n_ins_since_vacuum as well, no?


Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net