Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware
Date: 2021-01-15 04:33:38
Message-ID: CAD21AoDjJt8Pt3UvvWFaCpFBm+3+nrKwt6qKruO5gWwhO9VB3A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:24 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:43 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > More concretely, we could perhaps lower vacuum_cost_page_miss to 5. It
> > has had the value as 10 as its default since 2004 (just like
> > vacuum_cost_page_dirty, whose default has also not been changed since
> > the start). These defaults were decided in a time when nbtree VACUUM
> > could do lots of random I/O, there was no visibility map, etc. So this
> > refresh is not just about hardware.
>
> Attached patch lowers vacuum_cost_page_miss to 3. I think that this
> change in the default is both likely to be helpful in medium to large
> installations, and unlikely to cause harm in small installations. If
> I/O for reads made by VACUUM is naturally very slow (even in the
> common case where it's entirely sequential), then that will naturally
> provide additional throttling.

+1 for this change. Lowering to 2 also looks good to me.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Lawrence Barwick 2021-01-15 04:35:50 Pg14, pg_dumpall and "password_encryption=true"
Previous Message Wang, Shenhao 2021-01-15 03:50:22 RE: invalid data in file backup_label problem on windows