Robert Haas wrote: > > My thought would be "is autovacuum running in the background in > between these commands?". >
That's a good thought, but no, autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor is set to 0.2, meaning that over 1 million dead tuples are necessary for autovacuum. Besides, if autovacuum had run, I think the pg_stat_user_tables.n_dead_tup would have reset to zero, as it did after my manual vacuum. Regarding HOT prune, I never did any updates, so I think there couldn't be any HOT tuples. Or does HOT prune do more than that? -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Surprising-dead-tuple-count-from-pgstattuple-tp2266955p2267263.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
