Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>
Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>,David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Date: 2019-04-10 15:21:07
Message-ID: 0495B833-B614-4170-9B67-EA88489E18EE@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On April 10, 2019 8:13:06 AM PDT, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>On 2019-Mar-31, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>
>> Alternative point of "if your database is super large and actively
>written,
>> you may want to set autovacuum_freeze_max_age to even smaller values
>so
>> that autovacuum load is more evenly spread over time" may be needed.
>
>I don't think it's helpful to force emergency vacuuming more
>frequently;
>quite the contrary, it's likely to cause even more issues. We should
>tweak autovacuum to perform freezing more preemtively instead.

I still think the fundamental issue with making vacuum less painful is that the all indexes have to be read entirely. Even if there's not much work (say millions of rows frozen, hundreds removed). Without that issue we could vacuum much more frequently. And do it properly in insert only workloads.

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2019-04-10 15:25:58 Re: Failure in contrib test _int on loach
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-04-10 15:13:06 Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)