|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> [ worries about overflow with VacuumCostLimit approaching INT_MAX ]
Actually, now that I think a bit harder, that disquisition was silly.
In fact, I'm inclined to argue that the already-committed patch
is taking the wrong approach, and we should revert it in favor of a
The reason is this: what we want to do is throttle VACUUM's I/O demand,
and by "throttle" I mean "gradually reduce". There is nothing gradual
about issuing a few million I/Os and then sleeping for many milliseconds;
that'll just produce spikes and valleys in the I/O demand. Ideally,
what we'd have it do is sleep for a very short interval after each I/O.
But that's not too practical, both for code-structure reasons and because
most platforms don't give us a way to so finely control the length of a
sleep. Hence the design of sleeping for awhile after every so many I/Os.
However, the current settings are predicated on the assumption that
you can't get the kernel to give you a sleep of less than circa 10ms.
That assumption is way outdated, I believe; poking around on systems
I have here, the minimum delay time using pg_usleep(1) seems to be
generally less than 100us, and frequently less than 10us, on anything
released in the last decade.
I propose therefore that instead of increasing vacuum_cost_limit,
what we ought to be doing is reducing vacuum_cost_delay by a similar
factor. And, to provide some daylight for people to reduce it even
more, we ought to arrange for it to be specifiable in microseconds
not milliseconds. There's no GUC_UNIT_US right now, but it's time.
(Perhaps we should also look into using other delay APIs, such as
nanosleep(2), where available.)
I don't have any particular objection to kicking up the maximum
value of vacuum_cost_limit by 10X or so, if anyone's hot to do that.
But that's not where we ought to be focusing our concern. And there
really is a good reason, not just nannyism, not to make that
setting huge --- it's just the wrong thing to do, as compared to
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2019-03-09 03:13:10||Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take|
|Previous Message||Thomas Munro||2019-03-09 02:30:40||Re: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional|