|From:||Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Grigory Smolkin <g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: autovacuum: change priority of the vacuumed tables|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:42:34 +0900
Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Grigory Smolkin
> <g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > On 02/15/2018 09:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> >> <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> Attached patch adds 'autovacuum_table_priority' to the current
> >>> list of automatic vacuuming settings. It's used in sorting of
> >>> vacuumed tables in autovacuum worker before actual vacuum.
> >>> The idea is to give possibility to the users to prioritize their
> >>> tables in autovacuum process.
> >> Hmm, I couldn't understand the benefit of this patch. Would you
> >> elaborate it a little more?
> >> Multiple autovacuum worker can work on one database. So even if a
> >> table that you want to vacuum first is the back of the list and
> >> there other worker would pick up it. If the vacuuming the table
> >> gets delayed due to some big tables are in front of that table I
> >> think you can deal with it by increasing the number of autovacuum
> >> workers.
> >> Regards,
> >> --
> >> Masahiko Sawada
> >> NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
> >> NTT Open Source Software Center
> > Database can contain thousands of tables and often updates/deletes
> > concentrate mostly in only a handful of tables.
> > Going through thousands of less bloated tables can take ages.
> > Currently autovacuum know nothing about prioritizing it`s work with
> > respect to user`s understanding of his data and application.
> Understood. I have a question; please imagine the following case.
> Suppose that there are 1000 tables in a database, and one table of
> them (table-A) has the highest priority while other 999 tables have
> same priority. Almost tables (say 800 tables) including table-A need
> to get vacuumed at some point, so with your patch an AV worker listed
> 800 tables and table-A will be at the head of the list. Table-A will
> get vacuumed first but this AV worker has to vacuum other 799 tables
> even if table-A requires vacuum later again.
> If an another AV worker launches during table-A being vacuumed, the
> new AV worker would include table-A but would not process it because
> concurrent AV worker is processing it. So it would vacuum other tables
> instead. Similarly, this AV worker can not get the new table list
> until finish to vacuum all other tables. (Note that it might skip some
> tables if they are already vacuumed by other AV worker.) On the other
> hand, if another new AV worker launches after table-A got vacuumed and
> requires vacuuming again, the new AV worker puts the table-A at the
> head of list. It processes table-A first but, again, it has to vacuum
> other tables before getting new table list next time that might
> include table-A.
> Is this the expected behavior? I'd rather expect postgres to vacuum it
> before other lower priority tables whenever the table having the
> highest priority requires vacuuming, but it wouldn't.
Yes, this is the expected behavior. The patch is the way to give the
user at least some control of the sorting, later it could be extended
with something more sophisticated.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Etsuro Fujita||2018-02-16 10:50:38||Re: non-bulk inserts and tuple routing|
|Previous Message||tushar||2018-02-16 10:34:56||Server Crash while executing pg_replication_slot_advance (second time)|