From: | Michael Chau <michael(dot)chau(at)gameyourgame(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Try to understand VACUUM and its settings |
Date: | 2015-10-05 22:00:46 |
Message-ID: | CALE++3Q20EAVM0NuS0Wst3yBSjKKYvpJU-Sdbs6ssJXG1UbHDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
Last Friday, I ran :
postgres=# select max(age(datfrozenxid)) from pg_database;
max
42579490
and then I ran :
SELECT relname, age(relfrozenxid) as xid_age,
pg_size_pretty(pg_table_size(oid)) as table_size
FROM pg_class
WHERE relkind = 'r' and pg_table_size(oid) > 1073741824
ORDER BY age(relfrozenxid) DESC LIMIT 20;
"table_1";42574012;"10111 MB"
"table_2";42567398;"5961 MB"
"table_3";20320509;"12 GB"
Today, the max is
43068744
and
"table_1";43063214;"10134 MB"
"table_2";43056600;"5984 MB"
"table_3";20809711;"12 GB"
====
It looks like the age(relfrozenxid) of the tables go up in tandem with the
max. autovacuum_freeze_max_age and vacuum_freeze_table_age are commented
out in postgresql.conf
#autovacuum_freeze_max_age = 200000000
#vacuum_freeze_table_age = 150000000
So, do I need to run vacuum freeze on those tables? Also, if
autovacuum_freeze_max_age is commented, does it still mean that the default
is 200M?
Thanks,
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2015-10-05 23:27:51 | Re: Replication with 9.4 |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-10-05 21:17:52 | Re: Serialization errors despite KEY SHARE/NO KEY UPDATE |