Re: autovacuum

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum
Date: 2006-02-01 21:21:16
Message-ID: 20060201212116.GN95850@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

This seems maybe a bit overkill to me. I think what would be more useful
is if autovacuum could execute more than one vacuum at a time, and you
could specify tables that are high priority (or possibly just say that
all tables with less than X live tuples in them are high priority). That
way a longer-running vacuum on a large table wouldn't prevent more
vacuum-sensative tables (such as queues) from being vacuumed frequently
enough.

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:50:25PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> matthew(at)zeut(dot)net ("Matthew T. O'Connor") writes:
> > Hope that helps. Real world feed-back is always welcome.
>
> While I'm at it, I should throw in an idea that I had a little while
> back about a "vacuum request manager."
>
> This is kind of orthogonal to everything else that has been happening
> with pg_autovacuum...
>
> One of the troubles we have been hitting with our homebrew scripts is
> when locking doesn't turn out, and they start submitting multiple
> vacuums at once, which sometimes builds up "to ill."
>
> A thought I had was to create a daemon that would serially process
> requests. It would just watch a table of requests, and when it finds
> work, start work.
>
> We'd then have some sort of "injection" process that would tell the
> daemon "Here's new work!"
>
> Requests would be defined thus:
>
> /* cbbrowne(at)[local]/dba2 vacdb=*/ \d vacuum_requests
> Table "public.vacuum_requests"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------------+--------------------------+------------------------
> vtable | text | not null
> vhost | text | not null
> vdatabase | text | not null
> urgency | integer | not null default 1
> created_on | timestamp with time zone | not null default now()
> completed_on | timestamp with time zone |
> failed_at | timestamp with time zone |
> Indexes:
> "vacuum_requests_pkey" primary key, btree (vtable, vhost, vdatabase, created_on)
> "vr_priority" btree (vhost, vdatabase, urgency) WHERE ((completed_on IS NULL) AND (failed_at IS NULL))
>
> /* cbbrowne(at)[local]/dba2 vacdb=*/ \d vacuum_start
> Table "public.vacuum_start"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------------+--------------------------+------------------------
> vtable | text | not null
> vhost | text | not null
> vdatabase | text | not null
> started_on | timestamp with time zone | not null default now()
> completed_on | timestamp with time zone |
> Indexes:
> "vacuum_start_pkey" primary key, btree (vtable, vhost, vdatabase, started_on)
>
> /* cbbrowne(at)[local]/dba2 vacdb=*/ \d vacuum_failures
> Table "public.vacuum_failures"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> ------------+--------------------------+------------------------
> vtable | text | not null
> vhost | text | not null
> vdatabase | text | not null
> started_on | timestamp with time zone | not null
> failed_on | timestamp with time zone | not null default now()
> Indexes:
> "vacuum_failures_pkey" primary key, btree (vtable, vhost, vdatabase, started_on)
>
>
> This has a bit more generality than would be needed for handling just
> one postmaster; host/database would allow this to be used to manage
> multiple backends...
>
> We have, in our "kludged-up scripts," three levels of granularity:
>
> 1. There are tables we vacuum every few minutes; they would be at
> urgency 1; every few minutes, we would, in effect, run the query...
>
> insert into vacuum_requests (vtable, vhost, vdatabase, urgency)
> select t.fqtablename, h.hostname, tld.name, 1
> from urgent_tables t, all_hosts h, all_tlds tld;
>
> 2. Then, there are "hourly" tables, at urgency level 2.
>
> Once an hour, we run:
>
> insert into vacuum_requests (vtable, vhost, vdatabase, urgency)
> select t.fqtablename, h.hostname, tld.name, 2
> from hourly_tables t, all_hosts h, all_tlds tld;
>
> 3. Once a day, we'd do something kind of like:
>
> insert into vacuum_requests (vtable, vhost, vdatabase, urgency)
> select table_schema || '.' || table_name, h.hostname, tld.name, 3
> from information_schema.tables, all_hosts h, all_tlds tld
> where table_type = 'BASE TABLE' and table_schema in ('public', 'pg_catalog');
>
> The event loop for the daemon would be to look up the highest priority
> table, and add an entry to vacuum_start.
>
> Then it vacuums the table.
>
> If that succeeds, the table is marked as complete in both
> vacuum_start, and, FOR EVERY ENTRY CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING, in
> vacuum_requests. Thus, if a table is queued up 20 times, it will be
> vacuumed once, and marked as done 20 times.
>
> If that fails, all the relevant entries in vacuum_start and
> vacuum_requests are marked with the failure information, and a record
> is added to the failures table.
>
> We're putting this off, pending the thought that, with 8.1, it's worth
> testing out pg_autovacuum again.
>
> The above is an "in-the-database" way of queueing up requests,
> associating priorities to them, and having the queue be
> administrator-visible.
>
> We were anticipating using our present quasi-kludgy scripts to add our
> favorite tables to the queue; it would seem a nice/natural thing for
> there to be some automatic process (ala the pg_autovacuum daemon) that
> could add things to the queue based on its knowledge of updates.
>
> My thought is that if anything about the above appears useful to
> pg_autovacuum, I'd be happy if pg_autovacuum grabbed (stole? ;-)) some
> of the ideas.
> --
> "cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
> http://cbbrowne.com/info/sap.html
> "The X-Files are too optimistic. The truth is *not* out there..."
> -- Anthony Ord <nws(at)rollingthunder(dot)co(dot)uk>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2006-02-01 21:37:07 Re: [PERFORM] Default autovacuum settings too conservative
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-02-01 21:16:33 Default autovacuum settings too conservative

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2006-02-01 21:44:59 Question about ALTER TABLE SET TABLESPACE locing behaviour
Previous Message Chris Browne 2006-02-01 20:50:25 Re: autovacuum