Re: autovacuum recommendations for Large tables

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>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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