Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:10 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:58 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:12 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think the current situation is not good but if we try to cap it to
> > > > maintenance_work_mem + gin_*_work_mem then also I don't think it will
> > > > make the situation much better.  However, I think the idea you
> > > > proposed up-thread[1] is better.  At least the  maintenance_work_mem
> > > > will be the top limit what the auto vacuum worker can use.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm concerned that there are other index AMs that could consume more
> > > memory like GIN. In principle we can vacuum third party index AMs and
> > > will be able to even parallel vacuum them. I  expect that
> > > maintenance_work_mem is the top limit of memory usage of maintenance
> > > command but actually it's hard to set the limit to memory usage of
> > > bulkdelete and cleanup by the core. So I thought that since GIN is the
> > > one of the index AM it can have a new parameter to make its job
> > > faster. If we have that parameter it might not make the current
> > > situation much better but user will be able to set a lower value to
> > > that parameter to not use the memory much while keeping the number of
> > > index vacuums.
> > >
> >
> > I can understand your concern why dividing maintenance_work_mem for
> > vacuuming heap and cleaning up the index might be tricky especially
> > because of third party indexes, but introducing new Guc isn't free
> > either.  I think that should be the last resort and we need buy-in
> > from more people for that.  Did you consider using work_mem for this?
>
> Yeah that seems work too. But I wonder if it could be the similar
> story to gin_pending_list_limit. I mean that previously we used to use
>  work_mem as the maximum size of GIN pending list. But we concluded
> that it was not appropriate to control both by one GUC so we
> introduced gin_penidng_list_limit and the storage parameter at commit
> 263865a4
>

It seems you want to say about commit id
a1b395b6a26ae80cde17fdfd2def8d351872f399.   I wonder why they have not
changed it to gin_penidng_list_limit (at that time
pending_list_cleanup_size) in that commit itself?  I think if we want
to use gin_pending_list_limit in this context then we can replace both
work_mem and maintenance_work_mem with gin_penidng_list_limit.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com