On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:34 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'd also prefer to use maintenance_work_mem at max during parallel
>> >> vacuum regardless of the number of parallel workers. This is current
>> >> implementation. In lazy vacuum the maintenance_work_mem is used to
>> >> record itempointer of dead tuples. This is done by leader process and
>> >> worker processes just refers them for vacuuming dead index tuples.
>> >> Even if user sets a small amount of maintenance_work_mem the parallel
>> >> vacuum would be helpful as it still would take a time for index
>> >> vacuuming. So I thought we should cap the number of parallel workers
>> >> by the number of indexes rather than maintenance_work_mem.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Isn't that true only if we never use maintenance_work_mem during index cleanup? However, I think we are using
duringindex cleanup, see forex. ginInsertCleanup. I think before reaching any conclusion about what to do about this,
firstwe need to establish whether this is a problem. If I am correct, then only some of the index cleanups (like gin
index)use maintenance_work_mem, so we need to consider that point while designing a solution for this.
>> >
>>
>> I got your point. Currently the single process lazy vacuum could
>> consume the amount of (maintenance_work_mem * 2) memory at max because
>> we do index cleanup during holding the dead tuple space as you
>> mentioned. And ginInsertCleanup is also be called at the beginning of
>> ginbulkdelete. In current parallel lazy vacuum, each parallel vacuum
>> worker could consume other memory apart from the memory used by heap
>> scan depending on the implementation of target index AM. Given that
>> the current single and parallel vacuum implementation it would be
>> better to control the amount memory in total rather than the number of
>> parallel workers. So one approach I came up with is that we make all
>> vacuum workers use the amount of (maintenance_work_mem / # of
>> participants) as new maintenance_work_mem.
>
>
> Yeah, we can do something like that, but I am not clear whether the current memory usage for Gin indexes is correct.
Ihave started a new thread, let's discuss there.
>
Thank you for starting that discussion!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada