Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAApHDvo3maZsrZVq=Bur=Z6Gtse4asSEgHU0HzBhhcTfM-AfeA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread (Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 12:41, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com> wrote: > I think an approach of doing largest objects first actually might work > really well for balancing work amongst autovacuum workers. Many years > ago I designed a system to backup many databases with a pool of workers > and used this same simple & naive algorithm of just reverse sorting on > db size, and it worked remarkably well. If you have one big thing then > you probably want someone to get started on that first. As long as > there's a pool of workers available, as you work through the queue, you > can actually end up with pretty optimal use of all the workers. I believe that is methodology for processing work applies much better in scenarios where there's no new work continually arriving and there's no adverse effects from giving a lower priority to certain portions of the work. I don't think you can apply that so easily to autovacuum as there are scenarios where the work can pile up faster than it can be handled. Also, smaller tables can bloat in terms of growth proportional to the original table size much more quickly than larger tables and that could have huge consequences for queries to small tables which are not indexed sufficiently to handle being becoming bloated and large. David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: