Re: autovac issue with large number of tables

From: Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovac issue with large number of tables
Date: 2020-07-27 18:49:46
Message-ID: c10bda63-4de8-885c-3271-75dd07be931b@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/27/20 1:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 06:43, Nasby, Jim <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> A database with a very large number of tables eligible for autovacuum can result in autovacuum workers “stuck” in a tight loop of table_recheck_autovac() constantly reporting nothing to do on the table. This is because a database with a very large number of tables means it takes a while to search the statistics hash to verify that the table still needs to be processed[1]. If a worker spends some time processing a table, when it’s done it can spend a significant amount of time rechecking each table that it identified at launch (I’ve seen a worker in this state for over an hour). A simple work-around in this scenario is to kill the worker; the launcher will quickly fire up a new worker on the same database, and that worker will build a new list of tables.
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s not a complete solution though… if the database contains a large number of very small tables you can end up in a state where 1 or 2 workers is busy chugging through those small tables so quickly than any additional workers spend all their time in table_recheck_autovac(), because that takes long enough that the additional workers are never able to “leapfrog” the workers that are doing useful work.
>>
> As another solution, I've been considering adding a queue having table
> OIDs that need to vacuumed/analyzed on the shared memory (i.g. on
> DSA). Since all autovacuum workers running on the same database can
> see a consistent queue, the issue explained above won't happen and
> probably it makes the implementation of prioritization of tables being
> vacuumed easier which is sometimes discussed on pgsql-hackers. I guess
> it might be worth to discuss including this idea.
I'm in favor of trying to improve scheduling (especially allowing users
to control how things are scheduled), but that's a far more invasive
patch. I'd like to get something like this patch in without waiting on a
significantly larger effort.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-07-27 19:52:32 Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2020-07-27 18:41:54 Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] FW: autovac issue with large number of tables