Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 05:40:53PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
My Proposal: If we require admins to identify hot tables tables, then: 1) Launcher fires-off a worker1 into database X.
2) worker1 deals with "hot" tables first, then regular tables.
3) Launcher continues to launch workers to DB X every autovac naptime. 4) worker2 (or 3 or 4 etc...) sees it is alone in DB X, if so it acts as worker1 did above. If worker1 is still working in DB X then worker2 looks for hot tables that are being starved because worker1 got busy. If worker2 finds no hot tables that need work, then worker2 exits.

Rather than required people to manually identify hot tables, what if we
just prioritize based on table size? So if a second autovac process hits
a specific database, it would find the smallest table in need of
vacuuming that it should be able to complete before the next naptime and
vacuum that. It could even continue picking tables until it can't find
one that it could finish within the naptime. Granted, it would have to
make some assumptions about how many pages it would dirty.

ISTM that's a lot easier than forcing admins to mark specific tables.

So the heuristic would be:
* Launcher fires off workers into a database at a given interval (perhaps configurable?) * Each worker works on tables in size order. * If a worker ever catches up to an older worker, then the younger worker exits.

This sounds simple and workable to me, perhaps we can later modify this to include some max_workers variable so that a worker would only exit if it catches an older worker and there are max_workers currently active.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to