On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 1:30 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> There is also an alternative of making this GUC -1 by default, which
> means it has not effect and any value larger will be used in the threshold
> calculation of autovacuunm. A user will have to be careful not to set it too low,
> but that is going to be a concern either way.
Personally, I'd much rather ship it with a reasonable default. If we
ship it disabled, most people won't end up using it at all, which
sucks, and those who do will be more likely to set it to a ridiculous
value, which also sucks. If we ship it with a value that has a good
chance of being within 2x or 3x of the optimal value on a given user's
system, then a lot more people will benefit from it.
> Also, I think coming up with a good default will be challenging,
> and perhaps this idea is a good middle ground.
Maybe. I freely admit that I don't know exactly what the optimal value
is here, and I think there is some experimentation that is needed to
try to get some better intuition there. At what table size does the
current system actually result in too little vacuuming, and how can we
demonstrate that? Does the point at which that happens depend more on
the table size in gigabytes, or more on the number of rows? These are
things that someone can research and about which they can present
data.
As I see it, a lot of the lack of agreement up until now is people
just not understanding the math. Since I think I've got the right idea
about the math, I attribute this to other people being confused about
what is going to happen and would tend to phrase it as: some people
don't understand how catastrophically bad it will be if you set this
value too low. However, another possibility is that it is I who am
misunderstanding the math. In that case, the correct phrasing is
probably something like: Robert wants a completely useless and
worthless value for this parameter that will be of no help to anyone.
Regardless, at least some of us are confused. If we can reduce that
confusion, then people's ideas about what values for this parameter
might be suitable should start to come closer together.
I tend to feel like the disagreement here is not really about whether
it's a good idea to increase the frequency of vacuuming on large
tables by three orders of magnitude compared to what we do now, but
rather than about whether that's actually going to happen.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com