| From: | Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why isn't my table auto-analyzed/vacuumed? |
| Date: | 2025-10-31 20:03:39 |
| Message-ID: | 07sp7s76-r633-spqr-so3o-5oqs44r80np6@tzk.arg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday 2025-10-30 18:00, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > SELECT reltuples FROM pg_class WHERE relname =
> 'test_runs_summarized_per_function' \gx
> -[ RECORD 1 ]-----------
> reltuples | 6.061923e+09
>
> > SELECT name,setting FROM pg_settings WHERE name ILIKE '%factor%' ;
> name | setting
> ---------------------------------------+---------
> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor | 0.1
>
>
>0.1 means 10%.
>
> autovacuum_vacuum_insert_scale_factor | 0.2
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor | 0.2
> recursive_worktable_factor | 10
>
>
>n_mod_since_analyze=423101205
>n_live_tup=6484485348
>
>n_mod_since_analyze/n_live_tup = 6.5%
>
> How can I get more info from postgres on the autovacuum logic?
>
>
>I would:
>1) manually VACUUM ANALYZE the table,
>2) drop the three autovacuum_*_scale_factor values down to 0.03 (i.e. 3%),
Reporting back, after reducing the values, the table has been picked up
for both autovacuum and analyze. Thank you for the immediate feedback!
Since I had spent some time looking into these values and was "certain"
that they were % while they are apparently *not*, I'm wondering if
max_val=100 is there because of historical reasons, and if it would make
sense to change it to 1.
Dimitris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kai Wagner | 2025-10-31 20:04:32 | Re: Enquiry about TDE with PgSQL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-10-31 18:22:22 | Re: Enquiry about TDE with PgSQL |