Re: Autovacuum behavior

Thanks OM, I'll try setting that.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Om Prakash Jaiswal <op12om(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>
wrote:

> track_count = on;
> It is missing.
>
> Regards
> Om Prakash
>
>
>
> On Friday, 31 July 2015 12:21 AM, John Scalia <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)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
>
>
>