| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
| Date: | 2020-03-15 10:01:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20200315100150.GB26184@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 02:38:51PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Having now played with the patch, I'll suggest that 10000000 is too high a
> > threshold. If autovacuum runs without FREEZE, I don't see why it couldn't be
> > much lower (100000?) or use (0.2 * n_ins + 50) like the other autovacuum GUC.
>
> ISTM that the danger of regressing workloads due to suddenly repeatedly
> scanning huge indexes that previously were never / rarely scanned is
> significant
You're right - at one point, I was going to argue to skip index cleanup, and I
think wrote that before I finished convincing myself why it wasn't ok to skip.
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-03-15 10:32:31 | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-15 09:57:28 | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |