Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise
Date
Msg-id 20170720132845.GE1769@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise  (Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise
Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise
List pgsql-hackers
Greetings,

* Sokolov Yura (y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> I wrote two days ago about vacuum ring buffer:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8737e9bddb82501da1134f021bf4929a%40postgrespro.ru
>
> Increasing Vacuum's ring buffer to size of Bulk Writer's one reduces
> autovacuum time in 3-10 times.
> (for both patched and unpatched version I used single non-default
> setting
> 'autovacuum_cost_delay=2ms').
>
> This is single line change, and it improves things a lot.

Right- when the database fits in the OS cache but not in shared_buffers.

I do agree that's a useful improvement to make based on your testing.

It's not clear off-hand how much that would improve this case, as
the database size appears to pretty quickly get beyond the OS memory
size (and only in the first test is the DB starting size less than
system memory to begin with).

Thanks!

Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] huge RAM use in multi-command ALTER of table heirarchy
Next
From: Yugo Nagata
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] xlogfilename