From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The max value of autovacuum_vacuum/analyze_scale_factor. |
Date: | 2016-12-05 16:49:16 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBG9_=Qw5hLdbEOhTY5i56oJjwtCGYTOqsN-RA4SD6HKw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is there any reason why the max values of
>> autovacuum_vacuum/analyze_scale_factor are 100.0? These max values are
>> defined since when the parameters has been introduced but I think that
>> 1.0 is enough.
>>
>
> Yes, at least from
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-autovacuum.html,
> it looks like this is supposed to be a "fraction of table size".
> anything higher than 1.0 isn't a fraction. If at all any value > 1.0
> has a meaning, I am wondering whether it's to account for bloat. But
> then who would want to place the threashold in bloated area.
>
I understand that use case.
Thank you!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-05 16:51:13 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-05 16:46:47 | Re: Time to retire Windows XP buildfarm host? |