Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange

A while back we were discussing rapid space bloat of tables under
certain circumstances. One further case I am examining is a highly
volatile single table, and how to tame its space blowout.

I've got a nice simple example (attached). Making use of pgbench to run
it as usual ():

$ createdb cache
$ psql cache < schema.sql
$ pgbench -n -c8 -T300 -f volatile0.sql cache

...causes the table (imaginatively named 'cache0') to grow several GB
with default autovacuum parameters. Some minimal changes will rein in
the growth to about 100MB:

$ grep -e naptime -e autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit postgresql.conf
autovacuum_naptime = 5s
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 10000

However the cost_limit setting is likely to be way too aggressive
globally. No problem I figured, I'd leave it at the default (200) and
use ALTER TABLE to change it for *just* the 'cache0' table:

cache=# ALTER TABLE cache0 SET (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit=10000);

However re-running the pgbench test results in several GB worth of space
used by this table. Hmmm - looks like setting this parameter per table
does not work how I expected. Looking at
src/backend/postmaster/autovacuum.c I see some balancing calculations in
autovac_balance_cost() and AutoVacuumUpdateDelay(), the effect which
seems to be (after adding some debugging elogs) to reset the actual
effective cost_limit back to 200 for this table: viz (rel 16387 is cache0):

LOG: autovac_balance_cost(pid=24058 db=16384, rel=16387,
cost_limit=200, cost_limit_base=10000, cost_delay=20)
LOG: autovac_update_delay(pid=24058 db=16384, rel=16387,
cost_limit=200, cost_delay=20)

Is this working as intended? I did wonder if it was an artifact of only
having 1 table (creating another one made no difference)...or perhaps
only 1 active worker... I found I had to lobotomize the balancing calc
by doing:

cache=# ALTER TABLE cache0 SET (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay=0);

before I got the same effect as just setting the cost_limit globally.
I'm now a bit confused about whether I understand how setting cost_limit
and cost_delay via ALTER TABLE works (or in fact if it is working
properly for that matter).

Regards

Mark

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Mark Kirkwood <
mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:

> A while back we were discussing rapid space bloat of tables under certain
> circumstances. One further case I am examining is a highly volatile single
> table, and how to tame its space blowout.
>
> I've got a nice simple example (attached). Making use of pgbench to run it
> as usual ():
>
> $ createdb cache
> $ psql cache < schema.sql
> $ pgbench -n -c8 -T300 -f volatile0.sql cache
>
> ...causes the table (imaginatively named 'cache0') to grow several GB with
> default autovacuum parameters. Some minimal changes will rein in the growth
> to about 100MB:
>
> $ grep -e naptime -e autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit postgresql.conf
> autovacuum_naptime = 5s
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 10000
>
> However the cost_limit setting is likely to be way too aggressive
> globally. No problem I figured, I'd leave it at the default (200) and use
> ALTER TABLE to change it for *just* the 'cache0' table:
>
> cache=# ALTER TABLE cache0 SET (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit=10000);
>
> However re-running the pgbench test results in several GB worth of space
> used by this table. Hmmm - looks like setting this parameter per table does
> not work how I expected. Looking at src/backend/postmaster/autovacuum.c I
> see some balancing calculations in autovac_balance_cost() and
> AutoVacuumUpdateDelay(), the effect which seems to be (after adding some
> debugging elogs) to reset the actual effective cost_limit back to 200 for
> this table: viz (rel 16387 is cache0):
>
>
> LOG: autovac_balance_cost(pid=24058 db=16384, rel=16387, cost_limit=200,
> cost_limit_base=10000, cost_delay=20)
> LOG: autovac_update_delay(pid=24058 db=16384, rel=16387, cost_limit=200,
> cost_delay=20)
>
> Is this working as intended? I did wonder if it was an artifact of only
> having 1 table (creating another one made no difference)...or perhaps only
> 1 active worker... I found I had to lobotomize the balancing calc by doing:
>
> cache=# ALTER TABLE cache0 SET (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay=0);
>
> before I got the same effect as just setting the cost_limit globally. I'm
> now a bit confused about whether I understand how setting cost_limit and
> cost_delay via ALTER TABLE works (or in fact if it is working properly for
> that matter).
>

When I go through the code for checking the same, I got the following
behavior.

The default values of vacuum parameters - cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay -
0
The default values of auto vacuum parameters - cost_limit - (-1) and
cost_delay - 20ms.

1. User is not provided any vacuum parameters to the table, so the vacuum
options for the table are cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay - 20
2. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 to the table, so the vacuum options
for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay - 20

For the above two cases, the "autovac_balance_cost" function sets the cost
parameters as cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay - 20.

3. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 and cost_delay as 10 to the table,
so the vacuum options for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay -
10

This case the cost_limit - 100 and cost_delay - 10.

4. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 and cost_delay as 100 to the table,
so the vacuum options for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay -
100

This case the cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay - 100

From the above observations, The cost parameters of vacuum are not working
as they specified.
please correct me if anything wrong in my observation.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

On 13/02/14 17:13, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Mark Kirkwood <
> mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>
>> A while back we were discussing rapid space bloat of tables under certain
>> circumstances. One further case I am examining is a highly volatile single
>> table, and how to tame its space blowout.
>>
>> I've got a nice simple example (attached). Making use of pgbench to run it
>> as usual ():
>>
>> $ createdb cache
>> $ psql cache < schema.sql
>> $ pgbench -n -c8 -T300 -f volatile0.sql cache
>>
>> ...causes the table (imaginatively named 'cache0') to grow several GB with
>> default autovacuum parameters. Some minimal changes will rein in the growth
>> to about 100MB:
>>
>> $ grep -e naptime -e autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit postgresql.conf
>> autovacuum_naptime = 5s
>> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 10000
>>
>> However the cost_limit setting is likely to be way too aggressive
>> globally. No problem I figured, I'd leave it at the default (200) and use
>> ALTER TABLE to change it for *just* the 'cache0' table:
>>
>> cache=# ALTER TABLE cache0 SET (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit=10000);
>>
>> However re-running the pgbench test results in several GB worth of space
>> used by this table. Hmmm - looks like setting this parameter per table does
>> not work how I expected. Looking at src/backend/postmaster/autovacuum.c I
>> see some balancing calculations in autovac_balance_cost() and
>> AutoVacuumUpdateDelay(), the effect which seems to be (after adding some
>> debugging elogs) to reset the actual effective cost_limit back to 200 for
>> this table: viz (rel 16387 is cache0):
>>
>>
>> LOG: autovac_balance_cost(pid=24058 db=16384, rel=16387, cost_limit=200,
>> cost_limit_base=10000, cost_delay=20)
>> LOG: autovac_update_delay(pid=24058 db=16384, rel=16387, cost_limit=200,
>> cost_delay=20)
>>
>> Is this working as intended? I did wonder if it was an artifact of only
>> having 1 table (creating another one made no difference)...or perhaps only
>> 1 active worker... I found I had to lobotomize the balancing calc by doing:
>>
>> cache=# ALTER TABLE cache0 SET (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay=0);
>>
>> before I got the same effect as just setting the cost_limit globally. I'm
>> now a bit confused about whether I understand how setting cost_limit and
>> cost_delay via ALTER TABLE works (or in fact if it is working properly for
>> that matter).
>>
> When I go through the code for checking the same, I got the following
> behavior.
>
> The default values of vacuum parameters - cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay -
> 0
> The default values of auto vacuum parameters - cost_limit - (-1) and
> cost_delay - 20ms.
>
> 1. User is not provided any vacuum parameters to the table, so the vacuum
> options for the table are cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay - 20
> 2. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 to the table, so the vacuum options
> for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay - 20
>
> For the above two cases, the "autovac_balance_cost" function sets the cost
> parameters as cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay - 20.
>
> 3. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 and cost_delay as 10 to the table,
> so the vacuum options for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay -
> 10
>
> This case the cost_limit - 100 and cost_delay - 10.
>
> 4. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 and cost_delay as 100 to the table,
> so the vacuum options for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay -
> 100
>
> This case the cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay - 100
>
> From the above observations, The cost parameters of vacuum are not working
> as they specified.
> please correct me if anything wrong in my observation.
>

FWIW - I can confirm these calculations in 9.4devel. I found the
attached patch handy for logging what the balanced limit and delay was.

Regards

Mark

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> On 13/02/14 17:13, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>> When I go through the code for checking the same, I got the following
>> behavior.
>>
>> The default values of vacuum parameters - cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay
>> -
>> 0
>> The default values of auto vacuum parameters - cost_limit - (-1) and
>> cost_delay - 20ms.
>>
>> 1. User is not provided any vacuum parameters to the table, so the vacuum
>> options for the table are cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay - 20
>> 2. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 to the table, so the vacuum options
>> for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay - 20
>>
>> For the above two cases, the "autovac_balance_cost" function sets the cost
>> parameters as cost_limit - 200 and cost_delay - 20.
>>
>> 3. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 and cost_delay as 10 to the table,
>> so the vacuum options for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay -
>> 10
>>
>> This case the cost_limit - 100 and cost_delay - 10.
>>
>> 4. User is provided cost_limit as 1000 and cost_delay as 100 to the table,
>> so the vacuum options for the table are cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay -
>> 100
>>
>> This case the cost_limit - 1000 and cost_delay - 100
>>
>> From the above observations, The cost parameters of vacuum are not
>> working
>> as they specified.
>> please correct me if anything wrong in my observation.
>>
>>
> FWIW - I can confirm these calculations in 9.4devel. I found the attached
> patch handy for logging what the balanced limit and delay was.
>

I changed the balance cost calculations a little bit to give priority to
the user provided per table autovacuum parameters.
If any user specified per table vacuum parameters exists and those are
different with guc vacuum parameters then the
balance cost calculations will not include that worker in calculation. Only
the cost is distributed between other workers
with specified guc vacuum cost parameter.

The problem in this calculation is if the user provides same guc values to
the per table values also then it doesn't consider them in calculation.
Patch is attached in the mail. please provide you suggestions or
corrections in this approach.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

I hadn't noticed this thread. I will give this a look. Thanks for
providing a patch.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Haribabu Kommi escribió:

> I changed the balance cost calculations a little bit to give priority to
> the user provided per table autovacuum parameters.
> If any user specified per table vacuum parameters exists and those are
> different with guc vacuum parameters then the
> balance cost calculations will not include that worker in calculation. Only
> the cost is distributed between other workers
> with specified guc vacuum cost parameter.
>
> The problem in this calculation is if the user provides same guc values to
> the per table values also then it doesn't consider them in calculation.

I think this is a strange approach to the problem, because if you
configure the backends just so, they are completely ignored instead of
being adjusted. And this would have action-at-a-distance consequences
because if you change the defaults in postgresql.conf you end up with
completely different behavior on the tables for which you have carefully
tuned the delay so that they are ignored in rebalance calculations.

I think that rather than ignoring some backends completely, we should be
looking at how to "weight" the balancing calculations among all the
backends in some smart way that doesn't mean they end up with the
default values of limit, which AFAIU is what happens now -- which is
stupid. Not real sure how to do that, perhaps base it on the
globally-configured ratio of delay/limit vs. the table-specific ratio.

What I mean is that perhaps the current approach is all wrong and we
need to find a better algorithm to suit this case and more generally.
Of course, I don't mean to say that it should behave completely
differently than now in normal cases, only that it shouldn't give
completely stupid results in corner cases such as this one.

As an example, suppose that global limit=200 and global delay=20 (the
defaults). Then we have a global ratio of 5. If all three tables being
vacuumed currently are using the default values, then they all have
ratio=5 and therefore all should have the same limit and delay settings
applied after rebalance. Now, if two tables have ratio=5 and one table
has been configured to have a very fast vacuum, that is limit=10000,
then ratio for that table is 10000/20=500. Therefore that table should
be configured, after rebalance, to have a limit and delay that are 100
times faster than the settings for the other two tables. (And there is
a further constraint that the total delay per "limit unit" should be
so-and-so to accomodate getting the correct total delay per limit unit.)

I haven't thought about how to code that, but I don't think it should be
too difficult. Want to give it a try? I think it makes sense to modify
both the running delay and the running limit to achieve whatever ratio
we come up with, except that delay should probably not go below 10ms
because, apparently, some platforms have that much of sleep granularity
and it wouldn't really work to have a smaller delay.

Am I making sense?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Feb 15, 2014 9:19 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Haribabu Kommi escribió:
>
> > I changed the balance cost calculations a little bit to give priority to
> > the user provided per table autovacuum parameters.
> > If any user specified per table vacuum parameters exists and those are
> > different with guc vacuum parameters then the
> > balance cost calculations will not include that worker in calculation.
Only
> > the cost is distributed between other workers
> > with specified guc vacuum cost parameter.
> >
> > The problem in this calculation is if the user provides same guc values
to
> > the per table values also then it doesn't consider them in calculation.
>
> I think this is a strange approach to the problem, because if you
> configure the backends just so, they are completely ignored instead of
> being adjusted. And this would have action-at-a-distance consequences
> because if you change the defaults in postgresql.conf you end up with
> completely different behavior on the tables for which you have carefully
> tuned the delay so that they are ignored in rebalance calculations.
>
> I think that rather than ignoring some backends completely, we should be
> looking at how to "weight" the balancing calculations among all the
> backends in some smart way that doesn't mean they end up with the
> default values of limit, which AFAIU is what happens now -- which is
> stupid. Not real sure how to do that, perhaps base it on the
> globally-configured ratio of delay/limit vs. the table-specific ratio.
>
> What I mean is that perhaps the current approach is all wrong and we
> need to find a better algorithm to suit this case and more generally.
> Of course, I don't mean to say that it should behave completely
> differently than now in normal cases, only that it shouldn't give
> completely stupid results in corner cases such as this one.
>
> As an example, suppose that global limit=200 and global delay=20 (the
> defaults). Then we have a global ratio of 5. If all three tables being
> vacuumed currently are using the default values, then they all have
> ratio=5 and therefore all should have the same limit and delay settings
> applied after rebalance. Now, if two tables have ratio=5 and one table
> has been configured to have a very fast vacuum, that is limit=10000,
> then ratio for that table is 10000/20=500. Therefore that table should
> be configured, after rebalance, to have a limit and delay that are 100
> times faster than the settings for the other two tables. (And there is
> a further constraint that the total delay per "limit unit" should be
> so-and-so to accomodate getting the correct total delay per limit unit.)
>
> I haven't thought about how to code that, but I don't think it should be
> too difficult. Want to give it a try? I think it makes sense to modify
> both the running delay and the running limit to achieve whatever ratio
> we come up with, except that delay should probably not go below 10ms
> because, apparently, some platforms have that much of sleep granularity
> and it wouldn't really work to have a smaller delay.
>
> Am I making sense?

Yes makes sense and it's a good approach also not leaving the delay
parameter as is. Thanks I will give a try.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2014 9:19 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a strange approach to the problem, because if you
> > configure the backends just so, they are completely ignored instead of
> > being adjusted. And this would have action-at-a-distance consequences
> > because if you change the defaults in postgresql.conf you end up with
> > completely different behavior on the tables for which you have carefully
> > tuned the delay so that they are ignored in rebalance calculations.
> >
> > I think that rather than ignoring some backends completely, we should be
> > looking at how to "weight" the balancing calculations among all the
> > backends in some smart way that doesn't mean they end up with the
> > default values of limit, which AFAIU is what happens now -- which is
> > stupid. Not real sure how to do that, perhaps base it on the
> > globally-configured ratio of delay/limit vs. the table-specific ratio.
> >
> > What I mean is that perhaps the current approach is all wrong and we
> > need to find a better algorithm to suit this case and more generally.
> > Of course, I don't mean to say that it should behave completely
> > differently than now in normal cases, only that it shouldn't give
> > completely stupid results in corner cases such as this one.
> >
> > As an example, suppose that global limit=200 and global delay=20 (the
> > defaults). Then we have a global ratio of 5. If all three tables being
> > vacuumed currently are using the default values, then they all have
> > ratio=5 and therefore all should have the same limit and delay settings
> > applied after rebalance. Now, if two tables have ratio=5 and one table
> > has been configured to have a very fast vacuum, that is limit=10000,
> > then ratio for that table is 10000/20=500. Therefore that table should
> > be configured, after rebalance, to have a limit and delay that are 100
> > times faster than the settings for the other two tables. (And there is
> > a further constraint that the total delay per "limit unit" should be
> > so-and-so to accomodate getting the correct total delay per limit unit.)
> >
> > I haven't thought about how to code that, but I don't think it should be
> > too difficult. Want to give it a try? I think it makes sense to modify
> > both the running delay and the running limit to achieve whatever ratio
> > we come up with, except that delay should probably not go below 10ms
> > because, apparently, some platforms have that much of sleep granularity
> > and it wouldn't really work to have a smaller delay.
> >
> > Am I making sense?
>
> Yes makes sense and it's a good approach also not leaving the delay
> parameter as is. Thanks I will give a try.
>
I modified the "autovac_balance_cost" function to balance the costs using
the number of running workers, instead
of default vacuum cost parameters.

Lets assume there are 4 workers running currently with default cost values
of limit 200 and delay 20ms.
The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each.

Suppose if one worker is having a different cost limit value as 1000, which
is 5 times more than default value.
The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each for other 3 workers and
250 and 10ms for the worker having
cost limit value other than default. By this way also it still ensures the
cost limit value is 5 times more than other workers.

By this way the worker with user specified autovacuum cost parameters is
not ignored completely.
Patch is attached. Please let me know your suggestions.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

Haribabu Kommi wrote:

> I modified the "autovac_balance_cost" function to balance the costs using
> the number of running workers, instead
> of default vacuum cost parameters.

Just as a heads-up, this patch wasn't part of the commitfest, but I
intend to review it and possibly commit for 9.4. Not immediately but at
some point.

Arguably this is a bug fix, since the autovac rebalance code behaves
horribly in cases such as the one described here, so I should consider a
backpatch right away. However I don't think it's a good idea to do that
without more field testing. Perhaps we can backpatch later if the new
code demonstrates its sanity.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I modified the "autovac_balance_cost" function to balance the costs using
> the number of running workers, instead
> of default vacuum cost parameters.
>
> Lets assume there are 4 workers running currently with default cost values
> of limit 200 and delay 20ms.
> The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each.
>
> Suppose if one worker is having a different cost limit value as 1000, which
> is 5 times more than default value.
> The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each for other 3 workers and 250
> and 10ms for the worker having
> cost limit value other than default. By this way also it still ensures the
> cost limit value is 5 times more than other workers.

Won't this change break the basic idea of autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
which is as follows:
"Note that the value is distributed proportionally among the running autovacuum
workers, if there is more than one, so that the sum of the limits of each worker
never exceeds the limit on this variable.".

Basically with proposed change, the sum of limits of each worker will be more
than autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit and I think main reason for same is that
the new calculation doesn't consider autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit or other
similar parameters.

I think current calculation gives appropriate consideration for table level
vacuum settings when autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit is configured
with more care (i.e it is more than table level settings). As an example
consider the below case:

autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 10000
t1 (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 1000)
t2 (default)
t3 (default)
t4 (default)

Consider other settings as Default.

Now cost_limit after autovac_balance_cost is as follows:
Worker-1 for t1 = 322
Worker-2 for t2 = 3225
Worker-3 for t3 = 3225
Worker-4 for t3 = 3225

So in this way proper consideration has been given to table level
vacuum settings and guc configured for autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
with current code.

Now it might be the case that we want to improve current calculation for
cases where it doesn't work well, but I think it has to be better than current
behaviour and it is better to consider both guc's and table level settings with
some better formula.

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

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I modified the "autovac_balance_cost" function to balance the costs using
>> the number of running workers, instead
>> of default vacuum cost parameters.
>>
>> Lets assume there are 4 workers running currently with default cost values
>> of limit 200 and delay 20ms.
>> The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each.
>>
>> Suppose if one worker is having a different cost limit value as 1000, which
>> is 5 times more than default value.
>> The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each for other 3 workers and 250
>> and 10ms for the worker having
>> cost limit value other than default. By this way also it still ensures the
>> cost limit value is 5 times more than other workers.
>
> Won't this change break the basic idea of autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
> which is as follows:
> "Note that the value is distributed proportionally among the running autovacuum
> workers, if there is more than one, so that the sum of the limits of each worker
> never exceeds the limit on this variable.".

It is not breaking the behavior. This setting can be overridden for
individual tables by
changing storage parameters. Still the cost values for the default
tables are under the guc limit.

> Basically with proposed change, the sum of limits of each worker will be more
> than autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit and I think main reason for same is that
> the new calculation doesn't consider autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit or other
> similar parameters.

If user doesn't provide any table specific value then
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit guc
value is set to the table. So the same is used in the calculation.

> I think current calculation gives appropriate consideration for table level
> vacuum settings when autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit is configured
> with more care (i.e it is more than table level settings). As an example
> consider the below case:
>
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 10000
> t1 (autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 1000)
> t2 (default)
> t3 (default)
> t4 (default)
>
> Consider other settings as Default.
>
> Now cost_limit after autovac_balance_cost is as follows:
> Worker-1 for t1 = 322
> Worker-2 for t2 = 3225
> Worker-3 for t3 = 3225
> Worker-4 for t3 = 3225
>
> So in this way proper consideration has been given to table level
> vacuum settings and guc configured for autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
> with current code.

It works for the case where the table specific values less than the
default cost limit.
The same logic doesn't work with higher values. Usually the table
specific values
are more than default values to the tables where the faster vacuuming
is expected.

> Now it might be the case that we want to improve current calculation for
> cases where it doesn't work well, but I think it has to be better than current
> behaviour and it is better to consider both guc's and table level settings with
> some better formula.

With the proposed change, it works for both fine whether the table
specific value is higher
or lower to the default value. It works on the factor of the
difference between the default value
to the table specific value.

default autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 10000
t1 - 1000, t2 - default, t3 - default, t4 - default --> balance costs
t1 - 250, t2 - 2500, t3 - 2500, t4 - 2500.

t1 - 20000, t2 - default, t3 - default, t4 - default --> balance
costs t1 - 5000, t2 - 2500, t3 - 2500, t4 - 2500.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Haribabu Kommi
>> <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I modified the "autovac_balance_cost" function to balance the costs using
>>> the number of running workers, instead
>>> of default vacuum cost parameters.
>>>
>>> Lets assume there are 4 workers running currently with default cost values
>>> of limit 200 and delay 20ms.
>>> The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each.
>>>
>>> Suppose if one worker is having a different cost limit value as 1000, which
>>> is 5 times more than default value.
>>> The cost will be distributed as 50 and 10ms each for other 3 workers and 250
>>> and 10ms for the worker having
>>> cost limit value other than default. By this way also it still ensures the
>>> cost limit value is 5 times more than other workers.
>>
>> Won't this change break the basic idea of autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
>> which is as follows:
>> "Note that the value is distributed proportionally among the running autovacuum
>> workers, if there is more than one, so that the sum of the limits of each worker
>> never exceeds the limit on this variable.".
>
> It is not breaking the behavior. This setting can be overridden for
> individual tables by
> changing storage parameters. Still the cost values for the default
> tables are under the guc limit.

Could you think of a case where in current calculation it doesn't follow
what I mentioned above ("the sum of the limits of each worker
never exceeds the limit on this variable.")?

Here what I could understand is that sum of cost_limit for all
autovacuum workers should never exceed the value of
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit which seems to be always the
case in current code but same is not true for proposed patch.

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

On 05/05/14 15:22, Amit Kapila wrote:

> Here what I could understand is that sum of cost_limit for all
> autovacuum workers should never exceed the value of
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit which seems to be always the
> case in current code but same is not true for proposed patch.
>

Right, but have a look at the 1st message in this thread - the current
behavior (and to a large extent the above condition) means that setting
cost limits per table does not work in any remotely intuitive way.

ITSM that the whole purpose of a per table setting in this context is to
override the behavior of auto vacuum throttling - and currently this
does not happen unless you get real brutal (i.e setting the cost delay
to zero in addition to setting cost limit...making the whole cost limit
a bit pointless).

regards

Mark

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood
<mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
> On 05/05/14 15:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Right, but have a look at the 1st message in this thread - the current
> behavior (and to a large extent the above condition) means that setting
> cost limits per table does not work in any remotely intuitive way.
>
> ITSM that the whole purpose of a per table setting in this context is to
> override the behavior of auto vacuum throttling - and currently this does
> not happen unless you get real brutal (i.e setting the cost delay to zero in
> addition to setting cost limit...making the whole cost limit a bit
> pointless).

I think meaning of per table setting is just that it overrides the default
value of autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit for that table and the rest of
calculation or concept remains same. This is what currently code does
and the same is mentioned in docs as far as I can understand.

As per current behaviour the per-table cost_limit is also adjusted based
on the setting of GUC autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit and right now it
follows a simple principle that the total cost limit for all workers should be
equal to autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit. Even code has below comment:

/*
* Adjust cost limit of each active worker to balance the total of cost
* limit to autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit.
*/

Now If you want to change for the case where user specifies value per
table which is more than autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit or otherwise,
then I think the new definition should be bit more clear and it is better
not to impact current calculation for default values.

I could think of 2 ways to change this:

a. if user has specified cost_limit value for table, then it just uses it
rather than rebalancing based on value of system-wide guc variable
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
b. another could be to restrict setting per-table value to be lesser than
system-wide value?

The former is used for auto vacuum parameters like scale_factor and
later is used for parameters like freeze_max_age.

Thoughts?

Alvaro, do you think above options makes sense to solve this problem?

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

On 06/05/14 16:28, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood
> <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>> On 05/05/14 15:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Right, but have a look at the 1st message in this thread - the current
>> behavior (and to a large extent the above condition) means that setting
>> cost limits per table does not work in any remotely intuitive way.
>>
>> ITSM that the whole purpose of a per table setting in this context is to
>> override the behavior of auto vacuum throttling - and currently this does
>> not happen unless you get real brutal (i.e setting the cost delay to zero in
>> addition to setting cost limit...making the whole cost limit a bit
>> pointless).
> I think meaning of per table setting is just that it overrides the default
> value of autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit for that table and the rest of
> calculation or concept remains same. This is what currently code does
> and the same is mentioned in docs as far as I can understand.
>
> As per current behaviour the per-table cost_limit is also adjusted based
> on the setting of GUC autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit and right now it
> follows a simple principle that the total cost limit for all workers should be
> equal to autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit. Even code has below comment:
>
> /*
> * Adjust cost limit of each active worker to balance the total of cost
> * limit to autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit.
> */
>
> Now If you want to change for the case where user specifies value per
> table which is more than autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit or otherwise,
> then I think the new definition should be bit more clear and it is better
> not to impact current calculation for default values.
>
> I could think of 2 ways to change this:
>
> a. if user has specified cost_limit value for table, then it just uses it
> rather than rebalancing based on value of system-wide guc variable
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
> b. another could be to restrict setting per-table value to be lesser than
> system-wide value?
>
> The former is used for auto vacuum parameters like scale_factor and
> later is used for parameters like freeze_max_age.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Alvaro, do you think above options makes sense to solve this problem?

Yes indeed - the code currently working differently from what one would
expect. However the usual reason for handing knobs to the user for
individual object is so that special configurations can be applied to
them. The current method of operation of the per table knobs does not do
this (not without clubbing 'em on the head)

The (ahem) sensible way that one would expect (perhaps even need)
autovacuum throttling to work is:

- set sensible defaults for all the usual (well behaved) tables
- set a few really aggressive overrides for a handful of the naughty ones

Runaway free space bloat is one of the things that can really mangle a
postgres system (I've been called in to rescue a few in my time)...
there needs to be a way to control those few badly behaved tables ...
without removing the usefulness of throttling the others.

Regards

Mark

Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 06/05/14 16:28, Amit Kapila wrote:

> >On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood
> ><mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:

> >I could think of 2 ways to change this:
> >
> >a. if user has specified cost_limit value for table, then it just uses it
> > rather than rebalancing based on value of system-wide guc variable
> > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
> >b. another could be to restrict setting per-table value to be lesser than
> > system-wide value?
> >
> >The former is used for auto vacuum parameters like scale_factor and
> >later is used for parameters like freeze_max_age.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Alvaro, do you think above options makes sense to solve this problem?

I've been giving some thought to this. Really, there is no way to
handle this sensibly while at the same time keeping the documented
behavior -- or in other words, what we have documented is not useful
behavior. Your option (b) above is an easy solution to the problem,
however it means that the user will have serious trouble configuring the
system in scenarios such as volatile tables, as Mark says -- essentially
that will foreclose the option of using autovacuum for them.

I'm not sure I like your (a) proposal much better. One problem there is
that if you set the values for a table to be exactly the same values as
in postgresql.conf, it will behave completely different because it will
not participate in balancing. To me this seems to violate POLA.

I checked Haribabu's latest patch in this thread, and didn't like it
much. If you set up a table to have cost_delay=1000, it runs at that
speed when vacuumed alone; but if there are two workers, it goes at half
the speed even if the other one is configured with a very small
cost_delay (in essence, "waste" the allocated I/O bandwidth). Three
workers, it goes at a third of the speed -- again, even if the other
tables are configured to go much slower than the volatile one. This
seems too simplistic. It might be okay when you have only one or two
very large or high-churn tables, and small numbers of workers, but it's
not unreasonable to think that you might have lots more workers if your
DB has many high-churn tables.

So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay. The highest
the value is for any table, the fastest it is vacuumed. (It makes sense
in physical terms: a higher cost_limit makes it faster, because vacuum
sleeps less often; and a higher cost_delay makes it go slower, because
vacuums sleeps for longer.) Now, the critical issue is to notice that
not all tables are equal; they can be split in two groups, those that go
faster than the global delay equivalent
(i.e. the effective values of GUC variables
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit/autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay), and those
that go equal or slower. For the latter group, the rebalancing
algorithm "distributes" the allocated I/O by the global vars, in a
pro-rated manner. For the former group (tables vacuumed faster than
global delay equiv), to rebalance we don't consider the global delay
equiv but the delay equiv of the fastest table currently being vacuumed.

Suppose we have two tables, delay_equiv=10 each (which is the default
value). If they are both vacuumed in parallel, then we distribute a
delay_equiv of 5 to each (so set cost_limit=100, cost_delay=20). As
soon as one of them finishes, the remaining one is allowed to upgrade to
delay_equiv=10 (cost_limit=200, cost_delay=20).

Now add a third table, delay_equiv=500 (cost_limit=10000, cost_delay=20;
this is Mark's volatile table). If it's being vacuumed on its own, just
assign cost_limit=10000 cost_delay=20, as normal. If one of the other
two tables are being vacuumed, that one will use delay_equiv=10, as per
above. To balance the volatile table, we take the delay_equiv of this
one and subtract the already handed-out delay_equiv of 10; so we set the
volatile table to delay_equiv=490 (cost_limit=9800, cost_delay=20).

If we do it this way, the whole system is running at the full speed
enabled by the fastest table we have set the per-table options, but also
we have scaled things so that the slow tables go slow and the fast
tables go fast.

As a more elaborate example, add a fourth table with delay_equiv=50
(cost_limit=1000, cost_delay=20). This is also faster than the global
vars, so we put it in the first group. If all four tables are being
vacuumed in parallel, we have the two slow tables going at delay_equiv=5
each (cost_limit=100, cost_delay=20); then there are delay_equiv=490 to
distribute among the remaining ones; pro-rating this we have
delay_equiv=445 (cost_limit=8900, cost_delay=20) for the volatile table
and delay_equiv=45 (cost_limit=900, cost_delay=20) for the other one.

If one of the slowest tables finished vacuuming, the other one will
speed up to delay_equiv=10, and the two fastest ones will go on
unchanged. If both finish and the fast tables keep going, the faster
one will go at delay_equiv=454 and the other one at delay_equiv=45.
Note that the volatile table will go a bit faster while the other one is
barely affected.

Essentially, if you configure a table with a delay-equiv that's greater
than the system configured values, you're giving permission for vacuum
to use more I/O, but each table has its own limit to how fast it can go.

> The (ahem) sensible way that one would expect (perhaps even need)
> autovacuum throttling to work is:
>
> - set sensible defaults for all the usual (well behaved) tables
> - set a few really aggressive overrides for a handful of the naughty ones

Does my proposal above satisfy your concerns?

> Runaway free space bloat is one of the things that can really mangle
> a postgres system (I've been called in to rescue a few in my
> time)... there needs to be a way to control those few badly behaved
> tables ... without removing the usefulness of throttling the others.

Agreed.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay.

Here's a patch that implements this idea. As you see this is quite a
bit more complicated that Haribabu's proposal.

There are two holes in this:

1. if you ALTER DATABASE to change vacuum delay for a database, those
values are not considered in the global equiv delay. I don't think this
is very important and anyway we haven't considered this very much, so
it's okay if we don't handle it.

2. If you have a "fast worker" that's only slightly faster than regular
workers, it will become slower in some cases. This is explained in a
FIXME comment in the patch.

I don't really have any more time to invest in this, but I would like to
see it in 9.4. Mark, would you test this? Haribabu, how open are you
to fixing point (2) above?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On 27/08/14 10:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
>> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
>> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay.
>
> Here's a patch that implements this idea. As you see this is quite a
> bit more complicated that Haribabu's proposal.
>
> There are two holes in this:
>
> 1. if you ALTER DATABASE to change vacuum delay for a database, those
> values are not considered in the global equiv delay. I don't think this
> is very important and anyway we haven't considered this very much, so
> it's okay if we don't handle it.
>
> 2. If you have a "fast worker" that's only slightly faster than regular
> workers, it will become slower in some cases. This is explained in a
> FIXME comment in the patch.
>
> I don't really have any more time to invest in this, but I would like to
> see it in 9.4. Mark, would you test this? Haribabu, how open are you
> to fixing point (2) above?
>

Thanks Alvaro - I will take a look.

regards

Mark

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
>> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
>> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay.
>
> Here's a patch that implements this idea. As you see this is quite a
> bit more complicated that Haribabu's proposal.
>
> There are two holes in this:
>
> 1. if you ALTER DATABASE to change vacuum delay for a database, those
> values are not considered in the global equiv delay. I don't think this
> is very important and anyway we haven't considered this very much, so
> it's okay if we don't handle it.
>
> 2. If you have a "fast worker" that's only slightly faster than regular
> workers, it will become slower in some cases. This is explained in a
> FIXME comment in the patch.
>
> I don't really have any more time to invest in this, but I would like to
> see it in 9.4. Mark, would you test this? Haribabu, how open are you
> to fixing point (2) above?

Thanks Alvaro. I will check the point(2).

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

On 27/08/14 10:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
>> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
>> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay.
>
> Here's a patch that implements this idea. As you see this is quite a
> bit more complicated that Haribabu's proposal.
>
> There are two holes in this:
>
> 1. if you ALTER DATABASE to change vacuum delay for a database, those
> values are not considered in the global equiv delay. I don't think this
> is very important and anyway we haven't considered this very much, so
> it's okay if we don't handle it.
>
> 2. If you have a "fast worker" that's only slightly faster than regular
> workers, it will become slower in some cases. This is explained in a
> FIXME comment in the patch.
>
> I don't really have any more time to invest in this, but I would like to
> see it in 9.4. Mark, would you test this? Haribabu, how open are you
> to fixing point (2) above?
>

I did some testing with this patch applied.

Minimally tweaking autovacuum (naptime of 5s) with a single table
'cache0' created with a cost limit setting of 10000, running:

$ pgbench -n -c8 -T300 -f volatile0.sql cache

and monitoring the size of 'cache0' table showed a steady state of:

cache=# SELECT pg_relation_size('cache0')/(1024*1024) AS mb;
mb
------
85

So far so good. Adding another table 'cache1' similar to the previous
but lacking any per table autovacuum settings, and running 2 pgbench
sessions:

$ pgbench -n -c8 -T300 -f volatile0.sql cache
$ pgbench -n -c8 -T300 -f volatile1.sql cache

(volatile1.sql just uses table 'cache1' instead of 'cache0') shows after
a few minutes:

cache=# SELECT relname,pg_relation_size(oid)/(1024*1024) AS mb
FROM pg_class WHERE relname like 'cache_';
relname | mb
---------+--------
cache0 | 664
cache1 | 1900

So we are definitely seeing the 'fast' worker being slowed down. Also,
the growth of 'cache1' was only a bit faster than 'cache0' - so the
'slow' worker was getting a speed boost was well.

So looks like good progress, but yeah - point (2) is obviously rearing
its head in this test.

Cheers

Mark

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood
>> ><mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>> >I could think of 2 ways to change this:
>> >
>> >a. if user has specified cost_limit value for table, then it just uses it
>> > rather than rebalancing based on value of system-wide guc variable
>> > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
>> >b. another could be to restrict setting per-table value to be lesser than
>> > system-wide value?
>> >
>> >The former is used for auto vacuum parameters like scale_factor and
>> >later is used for parameters like freeze_max_age.
>> >
> I've been giving some thought to this. Really, there is no way to
> handle this sensibly while at the same time keeping the documented
> behavior -- or in other words, what we have documented is not useful
> behavior. Your option (b) above is an easy solution to the problem,
> however it means that the user will have serious trouble configuring the
> system in scenarios such as volatile tables, as Mark says -- essentially
> that will foreclose the option of using autovacuum for them.
>
> I'm not sure I like your (a) proposal much better. One problem there is
> that if you set the values for a table to be exactly the same values as
> in postgresql.conf, it will behave completely different because it will
> not participate in balancing. To me this seems to violate POLA.
>
> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
> equivalent", ...

I favor option (a). There's something to be said for your proposal
in terms of logical consistency with what we have now, but to be
honest I'm not sure it's the behavior anyone wants (I would welcome
more feedback on what people actually want). I think we should view
an attempt to set a limit for a particular table as a way to control
the rate at which that table is vacuumed - period.

At least in situations that I've encountered, it's typical to be able
to determine the frequency with which a given table needs to be
vacuumed to avoid runaway bloat, and from that you can work backwards
to figure out how fast you must process it in MB/s, and from there you
can work backwards to figure out what cost delay will achieve that
effect. But if the system tinkers with the cost delay under the hood,
then you're vacuuming at a different (slower) rate and, of course, the
table bloats.

Now, in the case where you are setting an overall limit, there is at
least an argument to be made that you can determine the overall rate
of autovacuum-induced I/O activity that the system can tolerate, and
set your limits to stay within that budget, and then let the system
decide how to divide that I/O up between workers. But if you're
overriding a per-table limit, I don't really see how that holds any
water. The system I/O budget doesn't go up just because one
particular table is being vacuumed rather than any other. The only
plausible use case for setting a per-table rate that I can see is when
you actually want the system to use that exact rate for that
particular table.

I might be missing something, of course.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas wrote:

> Now, in the case where you are setting an overall limit, there is at
> least an argument to be made that you can determine the overall rate
> of autovacuum-induced I/O activity that the system can tolerate, and
> set your limits to stay within that budget, and then let the system
> decide how to divide that I/O up between workers. But if you're
> overriding a per-table limit, I don't really see how that holds any
> water. The system I/O budget doesn't go up just because one
> particular table is being vacuumed rather than any other. The only
> plausible use case for setting a per-table rate that I can see is when
> you actually want the system to use that exact rate for that
> particular table.

Yeah, this makes sense to me too -- at least as long as you only have
one such table. But if you happen to have more than one, and due to
some bad luck they happen to be vacuumed concurrently, they will eat a
larger share of your I/O bandwidth budget than you anticipated, which
you might not like.

Thus what I am saying is that those should be scaled down too to avoid
peaks. Now, my proposal above mentioned subtracting the speed of tables
under the limit, from the speed of those above the limit; maybe we can
just rip that part out. Then we end up with the behavior you want, that
is to have the fast table vacuum as fast as it is configured when it's
the only fast table being vacuumed; and also with what I say, which is
that if you have two of them, the two balance the I/O consumption (but
only among themselves, not with the slow ones.)

Since figuring out this subtraction is the only thing missing from the
patch I posted, ISTM we could have something committable with very
little extra effort if we agree on this.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Now, in the case where you are setting an overall limit, there is at
>> least an argument to be made that you can determine the overall rate
>> of autovacuum-induced I/O activity that the system can tolerate, and
>> set your limits to stay within that budget, and then let the system
>> decide how to divide that I/O up between workers. But if you're
>> overriding a per-table limit, I don't really see how that holds any
>> water. The system I/O budget doesn't go up just because one
>> particular table is being vacuumed rather than any other. The only
>> plausible use case for setting a per-table rate that I can see is when
>> you actually want the system to use that exact rate for that
>> particular table.
>
> Yeah, this makes sense to me too -- at least as long as you only have
> one such table. But if you happen to have more than one, and due to
> some bad luck they happen to be vacuumed concurrently, they will eat a
> larger share of your I/O bandwidth budget than you anticipated, which
> you might not like.

I agree that you might not like that. But you might not like having
the table vacuumed slower than the configured rate, either. My
impression is that the time between vacuums isn't really all that
negotiable for some people. I had one customer who had horrible bloat
issues on a table that was vacuumed every minute; when we changed the
configuration so that it was vacuumed every 15 seconds, those problems
went away. Now that is obviously more a matter for autovacuum_naptime
than this option, but the point seems general to me: if you need the
table vacuumed every N seconds, minutes, or hours, and it only gets
vacuumed every 2N or 3N or 5N seconds, minutes, or hours because there
are other autovacuum workers running, the table is going to bloat.
That *might* be better than busting your I/O budget, but it might also
be (and I think frequently is) much worse.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas wrote:

> I agree that you might not like that. But you might not like having
> the table vacuumed slower than the configured rate, either. My
> impression is that the time between vacuums isn't really all that
> negotiable for some people. I had one customer who had horrible bloat
> issues on a table that was vacuumed every minute; when we changed the
> configuration so that it was vacuumed every 15 seconds, those problems
> went away.

Wow, that's extreme. For that case you can set
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit to 0, which disables the whole thing and
lets vacuum run at full speed -- no throttling at all. Would that
satisfy the concern?

> Now that is obviously more a matter for autovacuum_naptime
> than this option, but the point seems general to me: if you need the
> table vacuumed every N seconds, minutes, or hours, and it only gets
> vacuumed every 2N or 3N or 5N seconds, minutes, or hours because there
> are other autovacuum workers running, the table is going to bloat.

There might be another problem here which is that if you have all your
workers busy because they are vacuuming large tables that don't have
churn high enough to warrant disrupting the whole environment (thus low
cost_limit), then the table will bloat no matter what you set its cost
limit to. So there's not only a matter of a low enough naptime (which
is a bad thing for the rest of the system, also) but also one of
something similar to priority inversion; should you speed up the
vacuuming of those large tables so that one worker is freed soon enough
to get to the high-churn table?

Was the solution for that customer to set an external tool running
vacuum on that table?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I agree that you might not like that. But you might not like having
>> the table vacuumed slower than the configured rate, either. My
>> impression is that the time between vacuums isn't really all that
>> negotiable for some people. I had one customer who had horrible bloat
>> issues on a table that was vacuumed every minute; when we changed the
>> configuration so that it was vacuumed every 15 seconds, those problems
>> went away.
>
> Wow, that's extreme. For that case you can set
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit to 0, which disables the whole thing and
> lets vacuum run at full speed -- no throttling at all. Would that
> satisfy the concern?

Well, maybe, if you want to run completely unthrottled. But I have no
evidence that's a common desire.

>> Now that is obviously more a matter for autovacuum_naptime
>> than this option, but the point seems general to me: if you need the
>> table vacuumed every N seconds, minutes, or hours, and it only gets
>> vacuumed every 2N or 3N or 5N seconds, minutes, or hours because there
>> are other autovacuum workers running, the table is going to bloat.
>
> There might be another problem here which is that if you have all your
> workers busy because they are vacuuming large tables that don't have
> churn high enough to warrant disrupting the whole environment (thus low
> cost_limit), then the table will bloat no matter what you set its cost
> limit to. So there's not only a matter of a low enough naptime (which
> is a bad thing for the rest of the system, also) but also one of
> something similar to priority inversion; should you speed up the
> vacuuming of those large tables so that one worker is freed soon enough
> to get to the high-churn table?

I don't think so. I continue to believe that the we need to provide
the user with the tools to be certain that table X will get vacuumed
at least every Y seconds/minutes/hours. To me, allowing the user to
set a rate that the system will not adjust or manipulate in any way
makes this a lot easier than anything else we might do.

> Was the solution for that customer to set an external tool running
> vacuum on that table?

Nope, we just changed settings.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 29/08/14 08:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I agree that you might not like that. But you might not like having
>> the table vacuumed slower than the configured rate, either. My
>> impression is that the time between vacuums isn't really all that
>> negotiable for some people. I had one customer who had horrible bloat
>> issues on a table that was vacuumed every minute; when we changed the
>> configuration so that it was vacuumed every 15 seconds, those problems
>> went away.
>
> Wow, that's extreme. For that case you can set
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit to 0, which disables the whole thing and
> lets vacuum run at full speed -- no throttling at all. Would that
> satisfy the concern?
>

Well no - you might have a whole lot of big tables that you want vacuum
to not get too aggressive on, but a few small tables that are highly
volatile. So you want *them* vacuumed really fast to prevent them
becoming huge tables with only a few rows therein, but your system might
not be able to handle *all* your tables being vacuum full speed.

This is a fairly common scenario for (several) web CMS systems that tend
to want to have session and/cache tables that are small and extremely
volatile, plus the rest of the (real) data that is bigger and vastly
less volatile.

While there is a valid objection along the lines of "don't use a
database instead of memcache", it does seem reasonable that Postgres
should be able to cope with this type of workload.

Cheers

Mark

Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 29/08/14 08:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >>I agree that you might not like that. But you might not like having
> >>the table vacuumed slower than the configured rate, either. My
> >>impression is that the time between vacuums isn't really all that
> >>negotiable for some people. I had one customer who had horrible bloat
> >>issues on a table that was vacuumed every minute; when we changed the
> >>configuration so that it was vacuumed every 15 seconds, those problems
> >>went away.
> >
> >Wow, that's extreme. For that case you can set
> >autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit to 0, which disables the whole thing and
> >lets vacuum run at full speed -- no throttling at all. Would that
> >satisfy the concern?
>
> Well no - you might have a whole lot of big tables that you want
> vacuum to not get too aggressive on, but a few small tables that are
> highly volatile. So you want *them* vacuumed really fast to prevent
> them becoming huge tables with only a few rows therein, but your
> system might not be able to handle *all* your tables being vacuum
> full speed.

I meant setting cost limit to 0 *for those tables* only, not for all of
them.

Anyway it seems to me maybe there is room for a new table storage
parameter, say autovacuum_do_balance which means to participate in the
balancing program or not.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay. The highest
> the value is for any table, the fastest it is vacuumed. (It makes sense
> in physical terms: a higher cost_limit makes it faster, because vacuum
> sleeps less often; and a higher cost_delay makes it go slower, because
> vacuums sleeps for longer.) Now, the critical issue is to notice that
> not all tables are equal; they can be split in two groups, those that go
> faster than the global delay equivalent
> (i.e. the effective values of GUC variables
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit/autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay), and those
> that go equal or slower. For the latter group, the rebalancing
> algorithm "distributes" the allocated I/O by the global vars, in a
> pro-rated manner. For the former group (tables vacuumed faster than
> global delay equiv), to rebalance we don't consider the global delay
> equiv but the delay equiv of the fastest table currently being vacuumed.
>
> Suppose we have two tables, delay_equiv=10 each (which is the default
> value). If they are both vacuumed in parallel, then we distribute a
> delay_equiv of 5 to each (so set cost_limit=100, cost_delay=20). As
> soon as one of them finishes, the remaining one is allowed to upgrade to
> delay_equiv=10 (cost_limit=200, cost_delay=20).
>
> Now add a third table, delay_equiv=500 (cost_limit=10000, cost_delay=20;
> this is Mark's volatile table). If it's being vacuumed on its own, just
> assign cost_limit=10000 cost_delay=20, as normal. If one of the other
> two tables are being vacuumed, that one will use delay_equiv=10, as per
> above. To balance the volatile table, we take the delay_equiv of this
> one and subtract the already handed-out delay_equiv of 10; so we set the
> volatile table to delay_equiv=490 (cost_limit=9800, cost_delay=20).
>
> If we do it this way, the whole system is running at the full speed
> enabled by the fastest table we have set the per-table options, but also
> we have scaled things so that the slow tables go slow and the fast
> tables go fast.
>
> As a more elaborate example, add a fourth table with delay_equiv=50
> (cost_limit=1000, cost_delay=20). This is also faster than the global
> vars, so we put it in the first group. If all four tables are being
> vacuumed in parallel, we have the two slow tables going at delay_equiv=5
> each (cost_limit=100, cost_delay=20); then there are delay_equiv=490 to
> distribute among the remaining ones; pro-rating this we have
> delay_equiv=445 (cost_limit=8900, cost_delay=20) for the volatile table
> and delay_equiv=45 (cost_limit=900, cost_delay=20) for the other one.

How will this calculation behave if third table has delay_equiv = 30
and fourth table has delay_equiv = 20 which are both greater than
default delay_equiv = 10, so they will participate in fast group, as
per my understanding from above calculation both might get same
delay_equiv, but I might be wrong because still your patch has
FixMe and I haven't yet fully understood the code of patch.

In general, I have a feeling that distributing vacuuming speed is
a good way to tune the system, however if user wants to override
that by providing specific values for particular tables, we should
honour that setting.

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

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > Now, in the case where you are setting an overall limit, there is at
> > least an argument to be made that you can determine the overall rate
> > of autovacuum-induced I/O activity that the system can tolerate, and
> > set your limits to stay within that budget, and then let the system
> > decide how to divide that I/O up between workers. But if you're
> > overriding a per-table limit, I don't really see how that holds any
> > water. The system I/O budget doesn't go up just because one
> > particular table is being vacuumed rather than any other. The only
> > plausible use case for setting a per-table rate that I can see is when
> > you actually want the system to use that exact rate for that
> > particular table.
>
> Yeah, this makes sense to me too -- at least as long as you only have
> one such table. But if you happen to have more than one, and due to
> some bad luck they happen to be vacuumed concurrently, they will eat a
> larger share of your I/O bandwidth budget than you anticipated, which
> you might not like.

I think to control I/O bandwidth, there should be a separate mechanism
(may be similar to what Simon proposed for WAL rate limiting) rather
than by changing user specified values internally where he might
specifically want that value to be used. This can give more predictable
results which user can control.

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

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion
>> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay
>> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay.
>
> Here's a patch that implements this idea. As you see this is quite a
> bit more complicated that Haribabu's proposal.
>
> There are two holes in this:
>
> 1. if you ALTER DATABASE to change vacuum delay for a database, those
> values are not considered in the global equiv delay. I don't think this
> is very important and anyway we haven't considered this very much, so
> it's okay if we don't handle it.

In the attached patch, I changed the balance_cost function to get the
global cost values.
With this change the above problem can be addressed.

> 2. If you have a "fast worker" that's only slightly faster than regular
> workers, it will become slower in some cases. This is explained in a
> FIXME comment in the patch.

I changed as follows to handle these scenarios,

If fast workers equiv_delay is more than double global equiv_delay then the
global equiv_delay is decreased from fast workers equiv_delay and distribute
the same among fast workers.

If the difference delay between fast workers equiv_delay to global equiv_delay
is less than global equiv_delay, the fast workers equiv_delay along with
global equiv_delay is changed as below.

fast_equiv_delay -= (diff_equiv_delay) / num_fast_workers

global_equiv_delay -= (diff_equiv_delay) / num_regular_workers

Sorry for the late reply. Please let me know your comments.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

On 8/28/14, 12:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> At least in situations that I've encountered, it's typical to be able
> to determine the frequency with which a given table needs to be
> vacuumed to avoid runaway bloat, and from that you can work backwards
> to figure out how fast you must process it in MB/s, and from there you
> can work backwards to figure out what cost delay will achieve that
> effect. But if the system tinkers with the cost delay under the hood,
> then you're vacuuming at a different (slower) rate and, of course, the
> table bloats.
The last time I took a whack at this, I worked toward making all of the
parameters operate in terms of target MB/s, for exactly this style of
thinking and goal. Those converted into the same old mechanism under
the hood and I got the math right to give the same behavior for the
simple cases, but that could have been simplified eventually. I
consider that line of thinking to be the only useful one here.

The answer I like to these values that don't inherit as expected in the
GUC tree is to nuke that style of interface altogether in favor of
simplifer bandwidth measured one, then perhaps add multiple QoS levels.
Certainly no interest in treating the overly complicated innards of cost
computation as a bug and fixing them with even more complicated behavior.

The part of this I was trying hard to find time to do myself by the next
CF was a better bloat measure tool needed to actually see the problem
better. With that in hand, and some nasty test cases, I wanted to come
back to simplified MB/s vacuum parameters with easier to understand
sharing rules again. If other people are hot to go on that topic, I
don't care if I actually do the work; I just have a pretty clear view of
what I think people want.

> The only plausible use case for setting a per-table rate that I can
> see is when you actually want the system to use that exact rate for
> that particular table. That's the main one, for these must run on
> schedule or else jobs.
Yes.

On 8/29/14, 9:45 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Anyway it seems to me maybe there is room for a new table storage
> parameter, say autovacuum_do_balance which means to participate in the
> balancing program or not.

If that eliminates some of the hairy edge cases, sure.

A useful concept to consider is having a soft limit that most thing work
against, along with a total hard limit for the server. When one of
these tight schedule queries with !autovacuum_do_balance starts, they
must run at their designed speed with no concern for anyone else. Which
means:

a) Their bandwidth gets pulled out of the regular, soft limit numbers
until they're done. Last time I had one of these jobs, once the big
important boys were running, everyone else in the regular shared set
were capped at vacuum_cost_limit=5 worth of work. Just enough to keep
up with system catalog things, and over the course of many hours process
small tables.

b) If you try to submit multiple locked rate jobs at once, and the total
goes over the hard limit, they have to just be aborted. If the rush of
users comes back at 8AM, and you can clean the table up by then if you
give it 10MB/s, what you cannot do is let some other user decrease your
rate such that you're unfinished at 8AM. Then you'll have aggressive AV
competing against the user load you were trying to prepare for. It's
better to just throw a serious error that forces someone to look at the
hard limit budget and adjust the schedule instead. The systems with
this sort of problem are getting cleaned up every single day, almost
continuously; missing a day is not bad as long as it's noted and fixed
again before the next cleanup window.

Robert Haas wrote:

> I favor option (a). There's something to be said for your proposal
> in terms of logical consistency with what we have now, but to be
> honest I'm not sure it's the behavior anyone wants (I would welcome
> more feedback on what people actually want). I think we should view
> an attempt to set a limit for a particular table as a way to control
> the rate at which that table is vacuumed - period.

After re-reading this whole thread one more time, I think I have come to
agree with you and Amit here, because not only it is simpler to
implement, but it is also simpler to document. Per Greg Smith's opinion
elsewhere in the thread, it seems that for end users it doesn't make
sense to make the already complicated mechanism even more complicated.

So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
changes.

I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
9.4beta3.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I favor option (a). There's something to be said for your proposal
>> in terms of logical consistency with what we have now, but to be
>> honest I'm not sure it's the behavior anyone wants (I would welcome
>> more feedback on what people actually want). I think we should view
>> an attempt to set a limit for a particular table as a way to control
>> the rate at which that table is vacuumed - period.
>
> After re-reading this whole thread one more time, I think I have come to
> agree with you and Amit here, because not only it is simpler to
> implement, but it is also simpler to document. Per Greg Smith's opinion
> elsewhere in the thread, it seems that for end users it doesn't make
> sense to make the already complicated mechanism even more complicated.
>
> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
> changes.
>
> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
> 9.4beta3.

Cool!

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
> changes.
>
> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
> 9.4beta3.

Here's a patch that makes it work as proposed.

How do people feel about back-patching this? On one hand it seems
there's a lot of fear of changing autovacuum behavior in back branches,
because for many production systems it has carefully been tuned; on the
other hand, it seems hard to believe that anyone has tuned the system to
work sanely given how insanely per-table options behave in the current
code.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
>> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
>> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
>> changes.
>>
>> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
>> 9.4beta3.
>
> Here's a patch that makes it work as proposed.
>
> How do people feel about back-patching this? On one hand it seems
> there's a lot of fear of changing autovacuum behavior in back branches,
> because for many production systems it has carefully been tuned; on the
> other hand, it seems hard to believe that anyone has tuned the system to
> work sanely given how insanely per-table options behave in the current
> code.

I agree with both of those arguments. I have run into very few
customers who have used the autovacuum settings to customize behavior
for particular tables, and anyone who hasn't should see no change
(right?), so my guess is that the practical impact of the change will
be pretty limited. On the other hand, it's a clear behavior change.
Someone could have set the per-table limit to something enormous and
never suffered from that setting because it has basically no effect as
things stand right now today; and that person might get an unpleasant
surprise when they update.

I would at least back-patch it to 9.4. I could go either way on
whether to back-patch into older branches. I lean mildly in favor of
it at the moment, but with considerable trepidation.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
> >> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
> >> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
> >> 9.4beta3.
> >
> > Here's a patch that makes it work as proposed.
> >
> > How do people feel about back-patching this? On one hand it seems
> > there's a lot of fear of changing autovacuum behavior in back branches,
> > because for many production systems it has carefully been tuned; on the
> > other hand, it seems hard to believe that anyone has tuned the system to
> > work sanely given how insanely per-table options behave in the current
> > code.
>
> I agree with both of those arguments. I have run into very few
> customers who have used the autovacuum settings to customize behavior
> for particular tables, and anyone who hasn't should see no change
> (right?), so my guess is that the practical impact of the change will
> be pretty limited. On the other hand, it's a clear behavior change.
> Someone could have set the per-table limit to something enormous and
> never suffered from that setting because it has basically no effect as
> things stand right now today; and that person might get an unpleasant
> surprise when they update.
>
> I would at least back-patch it to 9.4. I could go either way on
> whether to back-patch into older branches. I lean mildly in favor of
> it at the moment, but with considerable trepidation.

I'm fine with putting it into 9.4. I'm not sure that I see the value in
changing the back-branches and then having to deal with the "well, if
you're on 9.3.5 then X, but if you're on 9.3.6 then Y" or having to
figure out how to deal with the documentation for this.

Has there been any thought as to what pg_upgrade should do..?

Thanks,

Stephen

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:

> > I agree with both of those arguments. I have run into very few
> > customers who have used the autovacuum settings to customize behavior
> > for particular tables, and anyone who hasn't should see no change
> > (right?), so my guess is that the practical impact of the change will
> > be pretty limited. On the other hand, it's a clear behavior change.
> > Someone could have set the per-table limit to something enormous and
> > never suffered from that setting because it has basically no effect as
> > things stand right now today; and that person might get an unpleasant
> > surprise when they update.
> >
> > I would at least back-patch it to 9.4. I could go either way on
> > whether to back-patch into older branches. I lean mildly in favor of
> > it at the moment, but with considerable trepidation.
>
> I'm fine with putting it into 9.4. I'm not sure that I see the value in
> changing the back-branches and then having to deal with the "well, if
> you're on 9.3.5 then X, but if you're on 9.3.6 then Y" or having to
> figure out how to deal with the documentation for this.

Well, the value obviously is that we would fix the bug that Mark
Kirkwood reported that started this thread.

Basically, if you are on 9.3.5 or earlier any per-table options for
autovacuum cost delay will misbehave (meaning: any such table will be
processed with settings flattened according to balancing of the standard
options, _not_ the configured ones). If you are on 9.3.6 or newer they
will behave as described in the docs.

> Has there been any thought as to what pg_upgrade should do..?

Yes, I'm thinking there's nothing it should do.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> Basically, if you are on 9.3.5 or earlier any per-table options for
> autovacuum cost delay will misbehave (meaning: any such table will be
> processed with settings flattened according to balancing of the standard
> options, _not_ the configured ones). If you are on 9.3.6 or newer they
> will behave as described in the docs.

Another thing to note is that if you have configured a table to have
cost_limit *less* than the default (say 150 instead of the default 200),
the balance system will again break that and process the table at 200
instead; in other words, the balancing system has completely broken the
ability to tweak the cost system for individual tables in autovacuum.

With the current code you can change the *ratios* of cost_limit that
would be applied (by setting one table to 5000 and another to 150, when
they are vacuumed in parallel you will get them at 194 and 5 instead of
the values you set, but the total limit allowed will never be exceeded
no matter what you do.)

With the v5 patch, the example tables above will be vacuumed at exactly
5000 and 150 instead. The more complex patch I produced earlier would
have them vacuumed at something like 4900 and 100 instead, so you
wouldn't exceed the total of 5000. I think there is some value to that
idea, but it seems the complexity of managing this is too high.

The ill effect of the patch is that it will be possible to have
autovacuum utilize a much larger fraction of the I/O bandwidth. This
was also possible before, but only by setting the cost delay to 0 (in
effect disabling throttling for the table). If somebody is thinking
that you could mount an attack to a server by having tables that use all
the I/O bandwidth, well -- it's not a new problem so I don't think we
need to solve it with this patch.

I am rather surprised that nobody has reported this problem before. I
am now of the mind that this is clearly a bug that should be fixed all
the way back.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Basically, if you are on 9.3.5 or earlier any per-table options for
> > autovacuum cost delay will misbehave (meaning: any such table will be
> > processed with settings flattened according to balancing of the standard
> > options, _not_ the configured ones). If you are on 9.3.6 or newer they
> > will behave as described in the docs.
>
> Another thing to note is that if you have configured a table to have
> cost_limit *less* than the default (say 150 instead of the default 200),
> the balance system will again break that and process the table at 200
> instead; in other words, the balancing system has completely broken the
> ability to tweak the cost system for individual tables in autovacuum.

That's certainly pretty ugly.

> With the v5 patch, the example tables above will be vacuumed at exactly
> 5000 and 150 instead. The more complex patch I produced earlier would
> have them vacuumed at something like 4900 and 100 instead, so you
> wouldn't exceed the total of 5000. I think there is some value to that
> idea, but it seems the complexity of managing this is too high.

Agreed.

> I am rather surprised that nobody has reported this problem before. I
> am now of the mind that this is clearly a bug that should be fixed all
> the way back.

I'm coming around to that also, however, should we worry about users who
set per-table settings and then simply forgot about them? I suppose
that won't matter too much unless the table is really active, and if it
is, they've probably already set it to zero.

Thanks,

Stephen

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:

> > I am rather surprised that nobody has reported this problem before. I
> > am now of the mind that this is clearly a bug that should be fixed all
> > the way back.
>
> I'm coming around to that also, however, should we worry about users who
> set per-table settings and then simply forgot about them? I suppose
> that won't matter too much unless the table is really active, and if it
> is, they've probably already set it to zero.

Right.

For the cases where it's been set and forgotten, perhaps we can have an
item in release notes to tell people to look into tables with the
parameters set in pg_class.reloptions (to any value different from zero)
and to look for performance differences from previous versions when they
are.

I have pushed this now, backpatch all the way back to 9.0.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services