Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1IL1-0007s6-JK for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:15:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1IL0-0004fi-DW for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:15:02 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1IL0-0004fa-1i for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:15:02 +0000 Received: from mail-yw1-xc41.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::c41]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h1IKx-0008VU-CR for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:15:01 +0000 Received: by mail-yw1-xc41.google.com with SMTP id s204so8289616ywg.2 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:14:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:subject:to:cc:references:openpgp:autocrypt:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=V/KnimKG8mjNNZD9mpKazONs8aoi6TwvGEo+LRwxn7Q=; b=oMx5gHRyjDd9r4RdvoZYnoQMoF8xj1+QKR6fVNcrGg7QZDXd8rTH3agVdmZs2ZVF9p DS3J+zbs3qgKvtMlDjPwACQ501Q9duyxdDUVw4oNdaBONl71Sd1hyntjXH+/XG/NEymM aEEMmKTAdnlX1B5gpx0kgJHLdJjLr1a3jc/ocOcK4cwnnrhOh3gurH73PBbsPulr38EM YRi756VZnwXZGpa3rhXHH8rPDPm+BKVOqD51v6oooMh7g425TRQdX7LE4NaG11+1xHeH SPap9rsqa7AZ6WcCt46ZolDHSUpVFToB4AJxukCGvpDaxi3F4oeg7DWsZAb/TzvWzxUl tg2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:cc:references:openpgp:autocrypt :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=V/KnimKG8mjNNZD9mpKazONs8aoi6TwvGEo+LRwxn7Q=; b=VjmNaHjZCiSCWBD8IAGWB4VTk0hK0Oo/5XskeYzp9abEM2BSEiL83Hg814/NXJWAkm dNch3AhBKF2LtrsigJlj0opHT1dKLHzugqbz+gDbTstUzDBMiAq+comgKh2epZWm5LK2 8S8avXpoRtYfazaXO9XZBssFxaaYYbcETs8GixpzZMUVc3/3Pp0r2Bu+INsCeUP8mxGl kOaPkCIbg+j2nEv3PaCK7MLScA3aFBNCHOpjHlSjglknfej/hiubFn+Lox4SnXas/z8z Jd4ZGBA+ZP2iUh8CnOrWW3gQoh2TZ1muJ1zzKP59kDekiTfCzklc3V/lAP0TNCHsYMpc CDNA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUT107jp+JGNshVolWTRC7Cfe0wzvqKflt0sEDU4Thb1l+UNxYk NWgJfZtb9mwQq120rn2xR2bea9LMQU2PzSZqO212+GTwLVxxyGT1UrwUEJG7k/N5//XyW2V8KNY r4gJMfYrrzdzD7iAENTfSJAJ85fIORU3OhqpoOB80XG5u2jBSAWNexLCtpxWmBu2jL/V31fwVss ZBwBlJ9gtrH58aW45pjGpM X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwefr/kSAQ/DL2swMCbvwVI/IY3eVlDtPZ1x/Xg6zziu8pyEtJx2LPpp5PPuPD3WkL8/1Uk0g== X-Received: by 2002:a25:84ce:: with SMTP id x14mr4159323ybm.302.1551824097158; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:14:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.10.146] ([98.122.175.38]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r31sm5625542ywa.0.2019.03.05.14.14.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:14:55 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew Dunstan X-Google-Original-From: Andrew Dunstan Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? To: David Rowley , Joe Conway Cc: Peter Geoghegan , PostgreSQL Hackers References: <241b80ab-7af0-c606-7b2c-b0a5d6be696a@joeconway.com> Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=andrew.dunstan@2ndQuadrant.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBE7KWFkBCAClridxur2AIc7eW2AR7izbfp3EnNefie2HbLF0izW5Ik5UjX2HBXBx4syI gY6b0ugohXrr274+baoAlvSbq6cAoQuEVrk5IZFzt20b1Xkx65FwGSEj526yiKLocqkJceSq Xr9xcA5SGY+FZv441chh5SU92v4q6z+6LPpoHOh97ptAVXZYNTtU0LevyvD5lja0TzbvJm6C eFXitJfnm1pLEr0DGJCR/iUOl/N62Kh4855zZC7NHIjQHPOvV5Stz/l5ilDhvGVk+xkXFPys SjZoUr1rXhYLpiyi5sR0X9FHXT0KnGuz1F5ERO7ZTLSSQ6fJwPj6gOk9K+vvoKvoeql5ABEB AAHNL0FuZHJldyBEdW5zdGFuIDxhbmRyZXcuZHVuc3RhbkAybmRRdWFkcmFudC5jb20+wsCY BBMBAgBCAhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUJDyV6hBYhBOQ+WEYd/Hy/RGkV pZn6f8tZ/DuBBQJcH/EVAhkBAAoJEJn6f8tZ/DuB7BEH/iDWZEbVft2m2MT6SPjARzTupt/l xLLZ/Cl6n2US2hov5+fBbnR5xvECk/YCOfG9ICvKNlpFjceqNLRKStd8cmndnI+kDw91uNM2 hpL4aJMeW65XCHvqXlOLSwv5chBpXz9NG7FMaJ+q+59sWEWjcTNmjXgkEHn53y+1pc7nSLDe cr5ZI1aB3nGXRm1SoDY5PYZkUKMykW+YBZwgcs/Q5tRaE+siN7DKbz8E628+PerwAkmHPVXN MdJFD6gs4S0gDFA8IxcyIwZU2v4By+brzcJ9Se3FK5BYxBDHtaYZxgSrJAvOUOrLIZPQTQfL TtnVs3C3JTfrxCH1ceHtnA6dRuTOwE0ETspYWQEIANGc4zQULOxhbqO2dyD51YhqCNRmm9oK Waqf+wmW4tpDe/VVcxAnNizd4LWCHfzpb5cHAtGkOPePMfzWVf6nvdF7d3eglbtf59+zG7O7 llV0xSSoFiieQBsrGvqDInXYX/4mRRXMtyhM353/tixC9RWLs1oofyYmCPPXXY7h9R7en3B8 BoVrRFcdzlIY/NFNhFGW/9dkEiGjgna2Rk6e15kln4ZvFBWUg23p93w/pqXcxY6+k/8TEk+C 4R+M6w7o2PLGOjdZ+kPiUcw5H85zf/yZJwQXzisXaNduwWB6Vads9YC9dj6kPR1c4VGRqAaY L++LAEOqrlvm2TvqQqZRtnEAEQEAAcLAZQQYAQIADwIbDAUCXA6fpAUJDyV6xAAKCRCZ+n/L Wfw7geU4B/9vFFsVmWxerDWgNjyiK80zIPmlw/iwdUlU6FIu0JWLMg4093kvxBs7RMZV9hBq n3ekBvD4IvFsVLJrw9qzSI2FH3UeYy5WXpEs01Ppia60NOlvRDqXbryzuvfe+iYo6bVP3Ikr TPTNYL/BePUTD2DPvSI82SbGTyzuA7SJv6NRqqQDMIy1fU6KyQFLmQJp/QJyhKWzm9jWh8ee w8jVaoMY0Kbq5N7RqisEx1Lu/Iw646UphdYzQNymf+kbiU5Kf4I6DhzV8w9sie1Bo1juNj3I c5/fFJsmxljbnaDbXPcnFsur1Oo9mIHFakgWgOBMuxoWfjONiLjjLh/9+ZIqSSLX Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 17:14:55 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-MW List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 2/25/19 8:38 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 02:06, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 2/25/19 1:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:42 PM David Rowley >>> wrote: >>>> The current default vacuum_cost_limit of 200 seems to be 15 years old >>>> and was added in f425b605f4e. >>>> >>>> Any supporters for raising the default? >>> I also think that the current default limit is far too conservative. >> I agree entirely. In my experience you are usually much better off if >> vacuum finishes quickly. Personally I think our default scale factors >> are horrible too, especially when there are tables with large numbers of >> rows. > Agreed that the scale factors are not perfect, but I don't think > changing them is as quite a no-brainer as the vacuum_cost_limit, so > the attached patch just does the vacuum_cost_limit. > > I decided to do the times by 10 option that I had mentioned.... Ensue > debate about that... > > I'll add this to the March commitfest and set the target version as PG12. > This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute objections. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services