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

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
>   On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:21 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On April 10, 2019 8:13:06 AM PDT, Alvaro Herrera
>     <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>     >On 2019-Mar-31, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>     >
>     >> Alternative point of "if your database is super large and actively
>     >written,
>     >> you may want to set autovacuum_freeze_max_age to even smaller values
>     >so
>     >> that autovacuum load is more evenly spread over time" may be needed.
>     >
>     >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.
>
>   So I see a couple of issues here and wondering what the best approach is.
>   The first is to just skip lazy_cleanup_index if no rows were removed.  Is
>   this the approach you have in mind?  Or is that insufficient?

I don't think that's what Andres had in mind, as he explicitly mentioned
removed rows. So just skipping lazy_cleanup_index when there were no
deleted would not help in that case.

What I think we could do is simply leave the tuple pointers in the table
(and indexes) when there are only very few of them, and only do the
expensive table/index cleanup once there's anough of them.

>   The second approach would be to replace the whole idea of this patch with
>   a lazy freeze worker which would basically periodically do a vacuum freeze
>   on relations matching certain criteria.  This could have a lower max
>   workers than autovacuum and therefore less of a threat in terms of total
>   IO usage.
>   Thoughts?
>

Not sure. I find it rather difficult to manage more and more different
types of cleanup workers.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services