On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 11:21:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:56:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > * To fix vacuumdb properly, it might be enough to get it to
> > batch VACUUMs, say by naming up to 1000 tables per command
> > instead of just one. I'm not sure how that would interact
> > with its parallelization logic, though. It's not really
> > solving the O(N^2) issue either, just pushing it further out.
>
> I have been thinking about this part, and using a hardcoded rule for
> the batches would be tricky. The list of relations returned by the
> scan of pg_class are ordered by relpages, so depending on the
> distribution of the sizes (few tables with a large size and a lot of
> table with small sizes, exponential distribution of table sizes), we
> may finish with more downsides than upsides in some cases, even if we
> use a linear rule based on the number of relations, or even if we
> distribute the relations across the slots in a round robin fashion for
> example.
I've always found it weird that it uses "ORDER BY relpages".
I'd prefer if it could ORDER BY age(relfrozenxid) or
GREATEST(age(relfrozenxid), age(relminmxid)), at least if you specify
one of the --min-*age parms. Or something less hardcoded and
unconfigurable.
--
Justin
