public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedAutovacuum and visibility maps
3+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Autovacuum and visibility maps
@ 2024-12-03 16:32 Tefft, Michael J <[email protected]>
2024-12-03 16:57 ` Re: Autovacuum and visibility maps Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tefft, Michael J @ 2024-12-03 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
We have some batch queries that had occasionally having degraded runtimes: from 2 hours degrading to 16 hours, etc.
Comparing plans from good and bad runs, we saw that the good plans used index-only scans on table "x", while the bad plans used index scans.
Using the pg_visibility utility, we found that all of the 83 partitions of table "x" were showing zero blocks where all tuples were visible. We ran a VACUUM on the table; the visibility maps are now clean and the good plans came back.
Our question is: why did autovacuum not spare us from this?
We are using default autovacuum parameters for all except log_autovacuum_min_duration=5000. These partitions are populated by processes that do a truncate + a single insert-select.
We see autovacuum failure (failed to get lock) messages, followed by a success message, in the log for one of these partitions (the biggest one) but even that partition showed zero blocks with all tuples visible.
Are we wrong to expect autovacuum to clean up the visibility map?
postgres=# select version();
version
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 14.13 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 8.5.0 20210514 (Red Hat 8.5.0-22), 64-bit
Thank you,
Mike Tefft
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Autovacuum and visibility maps
2024-12-03 16:32 Autovacuum and visibility maps Tefft, Michael J <[email protected]>
@ 2024-12-03 16:57 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2024-12-03 17:57 ` Re: Autovacuum and visibility maps Ron Johnson <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Klaver @ 2024-12-03 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tefft, Michael J <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
On 12/3/24 08:32, Tefft, Michael J wrote:
> We have some batch queries that had occasionally having degraded
> runtimes: from 2 hours degrading to 16 hours, etc.
>
> Comparing plans from good and bad runs, we saw that the good plans used
> index-only scans on table “x”, while the bad plans used index scans.
>
> Using the pg_visibility utility, we found that all of the 83 partitions
> of table “x” were showing zero blocks where all tuples were visible. We
> ran a VACUUM on the table; the visibility maps are now clean and the
> good plans came back.
>
> Our question is: why did autovacuum not spare us from this?
>
> We are using default autovacuum parameters for all except
> log_autovacuum_min_duration=5000. These partitions are populated by
> processes that do a truncate + a single insert-select.
>
> We see autovacuum failure (failed to get lock) messages, followed by a
> success message, in the log for one of these partitions (the biggest
> one) but even that partition showed zero blocks with all tuples visible.
>
> Are we wrong to expect autovacuum to clean up the visibility map?
I have to believe it is due to this:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-SPACE-RECOVERY
"If you have a table whose entire contents are deleted on a periodic
basis, consider doing it with TRUNCATE rather than using DELETE followed
by VACUUM. TRUNCATE removes the entire content of the table immediately,
without requiring a subsequent VACUUM or VACUUM FULL to reclaim the
now-unused disk space. The disadvantage is that strict MVCC semantics
are violated."
Combined with this:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-autovacuum.html#GUC-AUTOVACUUM-VACUUM-INSERT-...
"autovacuum_vacuum_threshold
Specifies the minimum number of updated or deleted tuples needed to
trigger a VACUUM in any one table. ...
"
I'm going to say the TRUNCATE itself does not trigger an autovacuum. I
would suggest throwing a manual VACUUM in the table population script.
>
> postgres=# select version();
>
> version
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> PostgreSQL 14.13 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 8.5.0
> 20210514 (Red Hat 8.5.0-22), 64-bit
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mike Tefft
>
--
Adrian Klaver
[email protected]
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Autovacuum and visibility maps
2024-12-03 16:32 Autovacuum and visibility maps Tefft, Michael J <[email protected]>
2024-12-03 16:57 ` Re: Autovacuum and visibility maps Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
@ 2024-12-03 17:57 ` Ron Johnson <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ron Johnson @ 2024-12-03 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 11:57 AM Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip]
>
> I have to believe it is due to this:
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-SPACE-RECOVERY
>
> "If you have a table whose entire contents are deleted on a periodic
> basis, consider doing it with TRUNCATE rather than using DELETE followed
> by VACUUM. TRUNCATE removes the entire content of the table immediately,
> without requiring a subsequent VACUUM or VACUUM FULL to reclaim the
> now-unused disk space. The disadvantage is that strict MVCC semantics
> are violated."
>
> Combined with this:
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-autovacuum.html#GUC-AUTOVACUUM-VACUUM-INSERT-...
>
> "autovacuum_vacuum_threshold
>
> Specifies the minimum number of updated or deleted tuples needed to
> trigger a VACUUM in any one table. ...
>
> "
>
> I'm going to say the TRUNCATE itself does not trigger an autovacuum. I
> would suggest throwing a manual VACUUM in the table population script.
>
Shouldn't autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold kick off an autovacuum if
you're doing a lot of inserts?
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-12-03 17:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-12-03 16:32 Autovacuum and visibility maps Tefft, Michael J <[email protected]>
2024-12-03 16:57 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2024-12-03 17:57 ` Ron Johnson <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox