On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:32 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:21 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that two approaches make parallel vacuum worker wait in
> > different way: in approach(a) the vacuum delay works as if vacuum is
> > performed by single process, on the other hand in approach(b) the
> > vacuum delay work for each workers independently.
> >
> > Suppose that the total number of blocks to vacuum is 10,000 blocks,
> > the cost per blocks is 10, the cost limit is 200 and sleep time is 5
> > ms. In single process vacuum the total sleep time is 2,500ms (=
> > (10,000 * 10 / 200) * 5). The approach (a) is the same, 2,500ms.
> > Because all parallel vacuum workers use the shared balance value and a
> > worker sleeps once the balance value exceeds the limit. In
> > approach(b), since the cost limit is divided evenly the value of each
> > workers is 40 (e.g. when 5 parallel degree). And suppose each workers
> > processes blocks evenly, the total sleep time of all workers is
> > 12,500ms (=(2,000 * 10 / 40) * 5 * 5). I think that's why we can
> > compute the sleep time of approach(b) by dividing the total value by
> > the number of parallel workers.
> >
> > IOW the approach(b) makes parallel vacuum delay much more than normal
> > vacuum and parallel vacuum with approach(a) even with the same
> > settings. Which behaviors do we expect?
> >
>
> Yeah, this is an important thing to decide. I don't think that the
> conclusion you are drawing is correct because it that is true then the
> same applies to the current autovacuum work division where we divide
> the cost_limit among workers but the cost_delay is same (see
> autovac_balance_cost). Basically, if we consider the delay time of
> each worker independently, then it would appear that a parallel vacuum
> delay with approach (b) is more, but that is true only if the workers
> run serially which is not true.
>
> > I thought the vacuum delay for
> > parallel vacuum should work as if it's a single process vacuum as we
> > did for memory usage. I might be missing something. If we prefer
> > approach(b) I should change the patch so that the leader process
> > divides the cost limit evenly.
> >
>
> I am also not completely sure which approach is better but I slightly
> lean towards approach (b). I think we need input from some other
> people as well. I will start a separate thread to discuss this and
> see if that helps to get the input from others.
+1
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com