Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps
Date: 2012-01-19 22:39:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1/19/12 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have to say that I find that intensely counterintuitive.  The
> current settings are not entirely easy to tune correctly, but at least
> they're easy to explain.

I attempt to explain those settings to people in training classes about 
once a month.  It's never been anything but a complete disaster.  I am 
barely concerned about preserving the current UI because, as far as I've 
been able to tell, there are only a handful of PostgreSQL installatinos 
on the planet that have managed to use it happily.  Even the ones that 
do have a non-default setup that works usually flailed about for some 
time until they get something that works, over a few frustrating months. 
  And the result are settings few dare touch for fear of breaking it.

It's also worth pointing out that VACUUM problems are very close to the 
top of the list of problems larger sites run into.  So right now we have 
an inscrutable UI around an often essential part of the database to 
tune, one that any production site that gets over a few hundred GB of 
data in it will run into problems with.  I wouldn't care about this area 
if it weren't for people screaming about how bad it is every time the 
topic comes up.

If there's anyone out there who has run a larger PostgreSQL database and 
not at some point been extremely frustrated with how the current VACUUM 
settings are controlled, please speak up and say I'm wrong about this. 
I thought it was well understood the UI was near unusably bad, it just 
wasn't obvious what to do about it.

> What does that 8MB mean and how does it
> relate to vacuum_cost_page_miss?  If I double vacuum_rate_page_miss,
> does that effectively also double the cost limit, so that dirty pages
> and hits become relatively cheaper?  If so, then I think what that
> really means is that the limit is 8MB only if there are no hits and no
> dirtied pages - otherwise it's less, and the amount by which it is
> less is the result of some arcane calculation.  Ugh!

Saying what I suggested is an arcane calculation strikes me as pretty 
weird--we'd be hard pressed to design a more arcane calculation than the 
one that's already happening.

The feedback here so far seems to lead toward making independent read 
and write knobs.  I'm going to chew on the scenarios Robert described 
and the ones Jim has been commenting on and see if I can refactor this 
into something friendlier that addresses them.

As for the suggestion that I'm bringing this up a bit late in the 
release cycle, I've been trying.  My first submission pushing in this 
direction--improving the logging first, which is needed before you can 
usefully measure a behavior change--happened back in September.  I've 
been moving this area as fast as I can get it to budge.  I'm concerned 
now that much will be made of improved performance in 9.2, leading to 
people converting even larger systems than they used to.  And it's not 
hard at all to find a large system where inability to tune vacuum easily 
is the top limiting factor on overall performance.

Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2012-01-19 22:59:03
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2012-01-19 22:23:52
Subject: Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group