| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sokolov Yura <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise |
| Date: | 2017-07-20 13:28:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20170720132845.GE1769@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Sokolov Yura (y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru) wrote:
> I wrote two days ago about vacuum ring buffer:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8737e9bddb82501da1134f021bf4929a%40postgrespro.ru
>
> Increasing Vacuum's ring buffer to size of Bulk Writer's one reduces
> autovacuum time in 3-10 times.
> (for both patched and unpatched version I used single non-default
> setting
> 'autovacuum_cost_delay=2ms').
>
> This is single line change, and it improves things a lot.
Right- when the database fits in the OS cache but not in shared_buffers.
I do agree that's a useful improvement to make based on your testing.
It's not clear off-hand how much that would improve this case, as
the database size appears to pretty quickly get beyond the OS memory
size (and only in the first test is the DB starting size less than
system memory to begin with).
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yugo Nagata | 2017-07-20 13:33:12 | Re: xlogfilename |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-20 13:19:10 | Re: [GENERAL] huge RAM use in multi-command ALTER of table heirarchy |