On 02/25/2013 09:00 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Feb 25, 2013, at 7:23, Stefan Andreatta <mailto:s.andrea...@synedra.com>> wrote:
On 02/24/2013 12:52 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Feb 23, 2013, at 14:11, Stefan Andreatta <mailto:s.andrea...@synedra.com>> wrote:
And we a
On 02/24/2013 12:52 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On Feb 23, 2013, at 14:11, Stefan Andreatta <mailto:s.andrea...@synedra.com>> wrote:
And we are still missing a number for rows updated since the last
analyse.
In MVCC an update is an insert + delete, so you already got those numbers.
G
On 02/23/2013 05:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2013, Stefan Andreatta wrote:
Thanks Jeff, that helped a lot (as did a careful rereading of
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/monitoring-stats.html
and
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static
On 02/22/2013 06:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Stefan Andreatta
mailto:s.andrea...@synedra.com>> wrote:
Hi,
If I understand
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/routine-vacuuming.html
correctly, the autovacuum threshold in could be est
Hi,
If I understand
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/routine-vacuuming.html
correctly, the autovacuum threshold in could be estimated like this in
PostgreSQL 9.1:
SELECT pg_stat_user_tables.relname,
pg_stat_user_tables.n_dead_tup,
CAST(current_setting('autovacuum_vacuum_th
