Re: Planning to change autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor value to zero. Please suggest me if any negative impact.

Thank you very much for your prompt response.

I requested in my previous mail as , planning to make '
*autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor*' value to *zero *and
*autovacuum_vacuum_threshold
*value to *150 * in postgreconf file.

Are you suggesting me to keep "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit" to zero or "
autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor" to zero or both? Please clarify me.

Regards,
Raghavendra Rao

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:

> Raghavendra Rao J S V wrote:
> > We are using postgres 9.2 version on Centos operating system. We have
> around 1300+ tables.
> > We have following auto vacuum settings are enables. Still few of the
> tables which are always busy are not vacuumed. Due to that tables are
> bloating and observed few areas has performance degradation.
> >
> > autovacuum_max_workers = 6
> > autovacuum_naptime = 15s
> > autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 25
> > autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 10
> > autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.1
> > autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.05
> > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 10ms
> > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 1000
> >
> > To avoid the above problem, I am planning to make '
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor' value to zero and
> autovacuum_vacuum_threshold value to 150. Please suggest me does it have
> any negative impact.
>
> That's an excellent way to keep your database from functioning well.
>
> Rather, raise autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit, or, more aggressively,
> set autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay to 0.
>
> It is better to change the settings on individual busy tables than
> changing them globally.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
> --
> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>

--
Regards,
Raghavendra Rao J S V
Mobile- 8861161425