public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Sami Imseih <[email protected]>
To: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:48:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5RZ0upTpKqgrdNfMSX7UJdjx=+=CsQ6Xct+vcCZPvUVhdZvw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvpxE8ci83d02dRE3-fMetb4Dc89-80FrjkGDz2q+ByJog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aOlC4aDoQcgW8ZpC@nathan>
<CA+TgmoYC4ShRp8vcyrBjkefSBdFfY1fnUgCvjocN-iq55G-7bA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvqrd=SHVUytdRj55OWnLH98Rvtzqam5zq2f4XKRZa7t9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<aPea8dG8_lFwTsyo@nathan>
<CAApHDvocam8_cxqO=LiSifgp0B3rs1=VWRVQiwAwz_DvOMgfVw@mail.gmail.com>
<aPklC5V61VcTu7IP@nathan>
<aPkpSXHB66islP3h@nathan>
<CAApHDvqobtKMwJbhKB_c=3-TM=TgS3bcuvzcWMm3ee1c0mz9hw@mail.gmail.com>
<aPkz9grlBAJRXrbe@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0vSPqd5vP4-17E6QELRgQzaoKChgp5TDPK9GhZEK=0Gjg@mail.gmail.com>
<aPp4VyLo2Zqk7oCV@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0sfQ-VSCSafsrvyJ7wsW1utLwtPVJ5N6hB0726BGRDrgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvpxE8ci83d02dRE3-fMetb4Dc89-80FrjkGDz2q+ByJog@mail.gmail.com>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 at 08:33, Sami Imseih <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yeah, you’re correct, the list already exists; sorry I missed that. My
> > main concern is
> > the additional overhead of the sort operation, especially if we have
> > many eligible
> > tables and an aggressive autovacuum_naptime.
>
> It is true that there are reasons that millions of tables could
> suddenly become eligible for autovacuum work with the consumption of a
> single xid, but I imagine sorting the list of tables is probably the
> least of the DBAs worries for that case as sorting the
> tables_to_process list is going to take a tiny fraction of the time
> that doing the vacuum work will take.
Yes, in my last reply, I did indicate that the sort will likely not be
the operation that will tip the performance over, but the
catalog scan itself that I have seen not scale well as the number of
relations grow ( in cases of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tables).
If we are to prioritize vacuuming by M(XID), then it will be hard to avoid the
catalog scan anymore in a future improvement.
>TBH, I think that mindset has likely contributed quite a
> bit to the fact that we've made about zero improvements in this area
> despite nobody thinking that nothing needs to be done.
I am not against this idea, just thinking out loud about the high relation
cases I have seen in the past.
--
Sami
view thread (143+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
In-Reply-To: <CAA5RZ0upTpKqgrdNfMSX7UJdjx=+=CsQ6Xct+vcCZPvUVhdZvw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox