Re: Tooling for per table autovacuum tuning

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Joseph Hammerman <joe(dot)hammerman(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Wolfgang Wilhelm <wolfgang20121964(at)yahoo(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tooling for per table autovacuum tuning
Date: 2023-03-13 05:58:44
Message-ID: 16d61d864feda279cfa6bcb4ea4d50c2b4fa3a7f.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

On Sun, 2023-03-12 at 13:34 -0700, Joseph Hammerman wrote:
> What I am imagining is per table tuning that buckets the tables based on their relative sizes.
>
> Something like:
>
> Up to 1Gb - Small
> Up to 4Gb - Medium
> Up to 8Gb - L
> Bigger - XL
>
> And an accordant autovacuum_scale_factor associated with each size.
>
> The motivation for this is to make sure large tables get regularly vacuumed.

I understand.

There is no such option currently. Perhaps you can use "autovacuum_vacuum_threshold"
for something like that: if you set it to a certain (high) value and set "autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor"
to 0, autovacuum is triggered based on the absolute number of dead tuples.

But I would say that the standard configuration makes sense in this case: normally,
large tables don't need to be vacuumed that often, and vacuum on large tables is
nore expensive too.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-03-13 10:09:36 Re: Tooling for per table autovacuum tuning
Previous Message Matt Pearson 2023-03-12 21:36:45 Re: Tooling for per table autovacuum tuning