An excellent write up.
And seems to be for the same reason why one should VACUUM after
On 3/13/23 05:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Mar-12, Ron wrote:
A giant table which is never updated (or deleted from) doesn't need to be
vacuumed.
Actually, this bit is wrong, because vacuuming is also used for things
such as setting up the visibility map, which feeds index-only scans. So
insert-only tables also benefit from vacuuming, and indeed Postgres 13
introduced this as an autovacuum feature, in this commit:
commit b07642dbcd8d5de05f0ee1dbb72dd6760dd30436
Author: David Rowley <drowley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> []
AuthorDate: Sat Mar 28 19:20:12 2020 +1300
CommitDate: Sat Mar 28 19:20:12 2020 +1300
Trigger autovacuum based on number of INSERTs
Traditionally autovacuum has only ever invoked a worker based on the
estimated number of dead tuples in a table and for anti-wraparound
purposes. For the latter, with certain classes of tables such as
insert-only tables, anti-wraparound vacuums could be the first vacuum that
the table ever receives. This could often lead to autovacuum workers being
busy for extended periods of time due to having to potentially freeze
every page in the table. This could be particularly bad for very large
tables. New clusters, or recently pg_restored clusters could suffer even
more as many large tables may have the same relfrozenxid, which could
result in large numbers of tables requiring an anti-wraparound vacuum all
at once.
Here we aim to reduce the work required by anti-wraparound and aggressive
vacuums in general, by triggering autovacuum when the table has received
enough INSERTs. This is controlled by adding two new GUCs and reloptions;
autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold and
autovacuum_vacuum_insert_scale_factor. These work exactly the same as the
existing scale factor and threshold controls, only base themselves off the
number of inserts since the last vacuum, rather than the number of dead
tuples. New controls were added rather than reusing the existing
controls, to allow these new vacuums to be tuned independently and perhaps
even completely disabled altogether, which can be done by setting
autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold to -1.
We make no attempt to skip index cleanup operations on these vacuums as
they may trigger for an insert-mostly table which continually doesn't have
enough dead tuples to trigger an autovacuum for the purpose of removing
those dead tuples. If we were to skip cleaning the indexes in this case,
then it is possible for the index(es) to become bloated over time.
There are additional benefits to triggering autovacuums based on inserts,
as tables which never contain enough dead tuples to trigger an autovacuum
are now more likely to receive a vacuum, which can mark more of the table
as "allvisible" and encourage the query planner to make use of Index Only
Scans.
Currently, we still obey vacuum_freeze_min_age when triggering these new
autovacuums based on INSERTs. For large insert-only tables, it may be
beneficial to lower the table's autovacuum_freeze_min_age so that tuples
are eligible to be frozen sooner. Here we've opted not to zero that for
these types of vacuums, since the table may just be insert-mostly and we
may otherwise freeze tuples that are still destined to be updated or
removed in the near future.
There was some debate to what exactly the new scale factor and threshold
should default to. For now, these are set to 0.2 and 1000, respectively.
There may be some motivation to adjust these before the release.
Author: Laurenz Albe, Darafei Praliaskouski
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera, Masahiko Sawada, Chris Travers, Andres Freund, Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAC8Q8t%2Bj36G_bLF%3D%2B0iMo6jGNWnLnWb1tujXuJr-%2Bx8ZCCTqoQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
