From: | David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |
Date: | 2016-03-19 08:20:09 |
Message-ID: | 20160319012009.19ca590d@engels |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:23:51 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> > I have some thoughts for a different approach. In short, the stats collector
> > actually knows what needs vacuuming because queries that create dead tuples
> > tell it. I'm considering have the stats collector maintain a queue of
> > vacuum work and that autovacuum request work from the stats collector. When I
> > have something more concrete I'll post it on hackers.
>
> Uh, what? The autovacuum code already looks at the stats maintained by
> the collector. If what you said means anything, it means "let's move the
> autovac scheduling logic into the collector", which seems neither useful
> nor sound from a modularity standpoint.
Well, there is that. Thats why I'm still considering and not yet posting a
concrete proposal on hackers. Really, there is no convenient location for this
decision making as no single process has all the information needed to
optimize autovacuum scheduling across databases. It's a bit of a puzzle.
-dg
--
David Gould 510 282 0869 daveg(at)sonic(dot)net
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ilya Matveychikov | 2016-03-19 10:16:50 | Re: BUG #14027: n_tup_ins increments regardless of insertion success |
Previous Message | David Gould | 2016-03-19 08:12:21 | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |