From: | Olivier Gautherot <ogautherot(at)gautherot(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum recommendations for Large tables |
Date: | 2020-11-17 21:17:05 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7S9TU1PzTRMBO_7XcbwkVrWXUEHPbbVUv_Q6RLorJnHoPtEg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Atul,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:05 AM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:57 PM Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I only have this one big table in the database of size 3113 GB with rows
>> 7661353111.
>>
>> Right Now the autovacuum setting for that table is set to
>>
>> {autovacuum_enabled=true,autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor=0.2,autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor=0.2}
>>
>>>
>>>>
> auto-vacuum doesn't care directly about absolute size, it cares about
> change (relative to absolute size in many cases, hence the scale factors).
>
> David J.
>
David is correct.
If it helps, I put together a few thoughts and own experience on a blog:
https://sites.google.com/gautherot.net/postgresql/vacuum
Hope you find it useful.
--
Olivier Gautherot
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Libre
de virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2020-11-17 21:18:25 | Re: pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 failes with plpython2 |
Previous Message | Devrim Gündüz | 2020-11-17 20:49:51 | Re: pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 failes with plpython2 |