Re: The max value of autovacuum_vacuum/analyze_scale_factor.

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The max value of autovacuum_vacuum/analyze_scale_factor.
Date: 2016-12-05 16:49:16
Message-ID: CAD21AoBG9_=Qw5hLdbEOhTY5i56oJjwtCGYTOqsN-RA4SD6HKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is there any reason why the max values of
>> autovacuum_vacuum/analyze_scale_factor are 100.0? These max values are
>> defined since when the parameters has been introduced but I think that
>> 1.0 is enough.
>>
>
> Yes, at least from
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-autovacuum.html,
> it looks like this is supposed to be a "fraction of table size".
> anything higher than 1.0 isn't a fraction. If at all any value > 1.0
> has a meaning, I am wondering whether it's to account for bloat. But
> then who would want to place the threashold in bloated area.
>

I understand that use case.
Thank you!

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-12-05 16:51:13 Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-12-05 16:46:47 Re: Time to retire Windows XP buildfarm host?