Hi all,
Since we are talking about multi-tenant databases, the citus extension
fits in neatly with that using horizontal partitioning/shards.
Regards,
Michael Vitale
Avinash Kumar wrote on 5/8/2020 6:14 AM:
Hi, On
Fri, 2020-05-08 at 03:47 -0300, Avinash Kumar wrote:
> > Just set "autovacuum_max_workers" higher.
>
> No, that wouldn't help. If you just increase
autovacuum_max_workers, the total cost limit of
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit (or vacuum_cost_limit) is shared by so
many workers and it
> further delays autovacuum per each worker. Instead you need to
increase autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
> as well when you increase the number of workers.
True, I should have mentioned that.
> But, if you do that and also increase workers, well, you would
easily reach the limitations
> of the disk. I am not sure it is anywhere advised to have 20
autovacuum_max_workers unless
> i have a disk with lots of IOPS and with very tiny tables across
all the databases.
Sure, if you have a high database load, you will at some point exceed
the limits of
the machine, which is not surprising. What I am trying to say is that
you have to ramp
up the resources for autovacuum together with increasing the overall
workload.
You should consider autovacuum as part of that workload.
If your machine cannot cope with the workload any more, you have to
scale, which
is easily done by adding more machines if you have many databases.
Agreed.
Getting back to the original question asked by Sammy, i think it is
still bad to create 2000 databases for storing 2000 clients/(schemas)
for a multi-tenant setup.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
-- Regards,
Avinash
Vallarapu
|
