Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)