Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 18:47:40 -0700
From: Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart
 <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Message-ID: <20251008184740.328d45de@ardentperf.com>
In-Reply-To: <20251008182520.6e05a8b8@ardentperf.com>
References: <aOaAuXREwnPZVISO@nathan>
	<CAA5RZ0ucgx6VgVCUYryZY33StMtHSpoND_7wEFjGCVCSjouUsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20251008164057.6bceb9ed@ardentperf.com>
	<CAApHDvo3maZsrZVq=Bur=Z6Gtse4asSEgHU0HzBhhcTfM-AfeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20251008172727.3befd129@ardentperf.com>
	<CAApHDvpMEs3rewULyJZ=huT8ZM1C1PboV-G7K7jfGtJSgdx-fA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20251008182520.6e05a8b8@ardentperf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20251008184740.328d45de%40ardentperf.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 18:25:20 -0700
Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:03:34 +1300
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I thought if we're to have a priority queue that it would be hard to
> > argue against sorting by how far over the given auto-vacuum
> > threshold that the table is.  If you assume that a table that just
> > meets the dead rows required to trigger autovacuum based on the
> > autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor setting gets a priority of 1.0, but
> > another table that has n_mod_since_analyze twice over the
> > autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor gets priority 2.0.  Effectively,
> > prioritise by the percentage over the given threshold the table is.
> > That way users could still tune things when they weren't happy with
> > the priority given to a table by adjusting the corresponding
> > reloption.
> 
> If users are tuning this thing then I feel like we've already lost the
> battle :)

I replied too quickly. Re-reading your email, I think your proposing a
different algorithm, taking tuple counts into account. No tunables. Is
there a fully fleshed out version of the proposed alternative algorithm
somewhere? (one of the older threads?) I guess this is why its so hard
to get anything committed in this area...

-J