| From: | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Subject: | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) | 
| Date: | 2019-04-14 12:58:55 | 
| Message-ID: | CAC8Q8tLbLJbNFpT2qP_FBmXO=fW1vjPJJXoLC7xDuUOuxQwn2g@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
>
>
> >I don't think it's helpful to force emergency vacuuming more
> >frequently;
> >quite the contrary, it's likely to cause even more issues.  We should
> >tweak autovacuum to perform freezing more preemtively instead.
>
> I still think the fundamental issue with making vacuum less painful is
> that the all indexes have to be read entirely. Even if there's not much
> work (say millions of rows frozen, hundreds removed). Without that issue we
> could vacuum much more frequently. And do it properly in insert only
> workloads.
>
Deletion of hundreds of rows on default settings will cause the same
behavior now.
If there was 0 updates currently the index cleanup will be skipped.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/22/1817/ got merged. This means
Autovacuum can have two separate thresholds - the current, on dead tuples,
triggering the VACUUM same way it triggers it now, and a new one, on
inserted tuples only, triggering VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP FALSE)?
-- 
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2019-04-14 14:11:52 | Re: Should the docs have a warning about pg_stat_reset()? | 
| Previous Message | Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski | 2019-04-14 12:51:05 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |