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
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 |