I have a use case to insert 100 000 rows per min at the same time in another end few threads will take the rows and delete them from my table. So definitely it will create lot of dead tuples in my table.
My auto-vacuum configurations are
autovacuum_max_workers = 3
autovacuum_naptime = 1min
utovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.2
autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.1
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 20ms
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = -1
From "pg_stat_user_tables" I can find auto-vacuum is running on my table but within a few hours my disk will be full (500 GB) and I can't able to insert any new row.
on the second try, I changed the following configuration
autovacuum_naptime = 60min
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0
This time my simulation and auto-vacuum are running well and max disk size is 180 GB.
Here my doubt is, if I change the "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay" to zero ms, how auto-vacuum freeing the dead tuples space and PG reuse it? why it is not working as intended if I set the value is 20 ms?
Here my doubt is, if I change the "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay" to zero ms, how auto-vacuum freeing the dead tuples space and PG reuse it?
The space freed up by vacuum is recorded in the free space map, from where it gets handed out for re-use by future INSERTs.
Another detail to add, in 9.6 the free space map is only vacuumed once the entire table itself is completely vacuumed, and so the freed up space is not findable until then. If the VACUUM never makes it to the very end, because it is too slow or gets interupted, then the space it is freeing up will not be reused for INSERTs. This was improved in v11.
why it is not working as intended if I set the value is 20 ms?
Because vacuum can't keep up at that value. The default values for PostgreSQL are often suitable only for smaller servers, which yours doesn't seem to be. It is appropriate and advisable to change the defaults in this situation. Note that in v12, the default was lowered from 20 to 2 (and its type was correspondingly changed from int to float, so you can now specify the value with more precision)
To summarize, your app creates tons of dead tuples and autovacuum can't keep up. Possible solutions
This sounds more like a task queue than a regular table. Perhaps a PostgreSQL table is not ideal for your this specific use case. Use a solution such as RabbitMQ/Redis instead.
Create time-based range partitions and purge old partitions once they're empty, while disabling autovacuum on this table alone. Consider not deleting rows at all and just purging old partitions if you can identify handled partitions.
Tweak with the autovacuum settings so that it works constantly, without any naps or interference. Increasing maintenance_work_mem could help speed autovacuum too. Perhaps you'll find out that you've reached your hard-drive's limits. In that case, you will have to optimize the storage so that it can accommodate those expensive INSERT+DELETE+autovacuum operations.
Well the default value is 2 ms Autovacuum. So your 20ms value is high:
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay (floating point)
"Specifies the cost delay value that will be used in automatic VACUUM operations. If -1 is specified, the regular vacuum_cost_delay value will be used. If this value is specified without units, it is taken as milliseconds. The default value is 2 milliseconds. This parameter can only be set in the postgresql.conf file or on the server command line; but the setting can be overridden for individual tables by changing table storage parameters."
As explained here Vacuum:
"
vacuum_cost_delay (floating point)
The amount of time that the process will sleep when the cost limit has been exceeded. If this value is specified without units, it is taken as milliseconds. The default value is zero, which disables the cost-based vacuum delay feature. Positive values enable cost-based vacuuming.
When using cost-based vacuuming, appropriate values for vacuum_cost_delay are usually quite small, perhaps less than 1 millisecond. While vacuum_cost_delay can be set to fractional-millisecond values, such delays may not be measured accurately on older platforms. On such platforms, increasing VACUUM's throttled resource consumption above what you get at 1ms will require changing the other vacuum cost parameters. You should, nonetheless, keep vacuum_cost_delay as small as your platform will consistently measure; large delays are not helpful.
"
Related
I am using postgresql for cloudSQL on GCP.
One table is almost in the process of inserting. (Theoretically more than 10 million per day)
Auto vacuum was performed when the data was about 10 billion.
Also, while auto vacuum was running, other processes could only be used by a single user.
Perhaps it is the effect of vacuum freeze.
What is the exact cause?
And I decided that the execution period would be shorter if auto vacuum was run in a smaller amount and frequently, so I modified the parameter as follows.
autovacuum_freeze_max_age : 2 billion -> 100 million
autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age : 2 billion -> 100 million
Are there any parameters that need to be modified to further increase performance?
Yes, those are the correct settings to make anti-wraparound autovacuum run more often, so that individual runs are smaller.
You can further improve matters for this table if you set vacuum_freeze_min_age to 0, so that all rows are frozen when autovacuum runs.
Note that you can set these parameters on a single table like this:
ALTER TABLE tab SET (
autovacuum_freeze_max_age = 100000000,
autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age = 100000000,
vacuum_freeze_min_age = 0
);
That is better, because other tables in your database may be served better with the default settings for these parameters.
Note that an easy alternative to all this is to upgrade to PostgreSQL v13 or better, where autovacuum will run more often on insert-only tables for exactly this reason.
As always with VACUUM, setting maintenance_work_mem high will improve performance.
On RDS PostgreSQL instance, below are the vacuum parameters set.
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay 5
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit 3000
vacuum_cost_page_dirty 20
vacuum_cost_page_hit 1
vacuum_cost_page_miss 0
From what I understand from this blog - https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/blog/autovacuum-tuning-basics/
There is a cost associated with if the page being vacuumed is in shared buffer or not. If the vacuum_cost_page_miss is set to zero, I am thinking its going to assume the cost of reading from disk is free and since the cost limit is set to 3000, the autovacuum will be performing lots of IO until it reaches the cost limit. Is my understanding correct? Would it mean something else by setting this parameter to 0?
0 is not a special value here, it means the same thing it does in ordinary arithmetic. So, no throttling will get applied on the basis of page misses.
This is my preferred setting for vacuum_cost_page_miss. Page misses are inherently self-limiting. Once a page is needed and not found, then the process stalls until the page is read. No more read requests will get issued by that process while it is waiting. This is in contrast to page dirtying. There is nothing other than vacuum_cost_page_dirty-driven throttling to prevent the vacuum process from dirtying pages far faster than they can be written to disk, leading to IO constipation which will then disturb everyone else on the system.
If you are going to reduce vacuum_cost_page_miss to zero, you should also set vacuum_cost_page_hit to zero. Having the latter high than the former is weird. Maybe whoever came up with those setting just figured that 1 was already low enough, so there was no point in changing yet another setting.
vacuum_cost_page_miss throttling could be particularly bad before v9.6 (when freeze map was introduced) when freezing large tables which have hit autovacuum_freeze_max_age, but have seen few changes since the last freeze. PostgreSQL will charge vacuum_cost_page_miss for every page, even though most of them will be found already in the kernel page cache (but not in shared_buffers) through the magic of readahead. So it will slow-walk the table as if it were doing random reads, while doing no useful work and holding the table lock hostage. This might be the exact thing that lead your predecessor to make the changes he made.
the autovacuum will be performing lots of IO until it reaches the cost limit.
Autovacuum once begun has a mostly fixed task to do, and will do the amount of IO it needs to do to get it done. At stake is not how much IO it will do, but over how much time it does it.
These settings are silly in my opinion.
Setting the cost for a page found in shared buffers higher than the cost for a page read from disk does not make any sense. Also, if you want to discount I/O costs, why leave vacuum_cost_page_dirty at 20?
Finally, increasing the cost limit and leaving the cost delay at a high value like 5 (the default from v12 on is 2) can only be explained if RDS is based on a PostgreSQL version older than v12.
It feels like whoever dabbled with the autovacuum settings had a vague idea to make autovacuum more aggressive, but didn't understand it well enough to do it right. I think the default settings of v12 are better.
I am trying to tweak the PostgreSQL server with the following config parameters in the configuration file:
autovacuum_freeze_max_age = 500000000
autovacuum_max_workers = 6
autovacuum_naptime = '15s'
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0
maintenance_work_mem = '10GB'
vacuum_freeze_min_age = 10000000
I want to understand what autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay does. I tried searching a lot on google but didn't get anything good enough to understand.
The documentation refers to vacuum_cost_delay, which says:
The amount of time that the process will sleep when the cost limit has been exceeded.
This is a feature to slow down autovacuum. Whenever an autovacuum worker does work (delete a tuple, read a block, ...), it collects work points. As soon as these points exceed autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit (200 by default), it makes a pause of
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay.
The reason is that VACUUM uses a lot of resources, so it is slowed down by default, in the hope not to be disruptive to normal operation. However, if autovacuum is too slow, you can end up with bloated tables.
I have db table which has around 5-6 Mn entries and it is taking around 20 minutes to perform vacuuming. Since, one field of this table is updated very frequently, thereare a lot of dead rows to deal with.
For an estimate, with our current user base it can have 2 Million dead tuples on daily basis. So, vacuuming of this table requires both:
Read IO: as the whole table is not present in shared memory.
Write IO: as there are a lot of entries to update.
What should be an ideal way to vacuum this table? Should I increase the autovacuum_cost_limit to allow more operations per autovacuum run? But as i can see, it will increase IOPS, which again might hinder the performance. Currently, I have autovacuum_scale_factor = 0.2. Should I decrease it? If I decrease it it will run more often, although write IO will decrease but it will lead to more number of time period with high read IO.
Also, as the user base will increase it will take more and more time as the size of table with increase and vacuum will have to read a lot from disk. So, what should I do?
One of the solution I have thought of:
Separate the highly updated column and make a separate table.
Tweaking the parameter to make it run more often to decrease write IO(as discussed above). How to handle more Read IO, as vacuum will now run more often?
Combine point 2 along with increasing RAM to reduce Read IO as well.
In general what is the approach that people takes, because I assume people must have very big table 10GB or more, that needs to be vacuumed.
Separating the column is a viable strategy but would be a last resort to me. PostgreSQL already has a high per-row overhead, and doing this would double it (which might also remove most of the benefit). Plus, it would make your queries uglier, harder to read, harder to maintain, easier to introduce bugs. Where splitting it would be most attractive is if index-only-scans on a set of columns not including this is are important to you, and splitting it out lets you keep the visibility map for those remaining columns in a better state.
Why do you care that it takes 20 minutes? Is that causing something bad to happen? At that rate, you could vacuum this table 72 times a day, which seems to be way more often than it actually needs to be vacuumed. In v12, the default value for autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay was dropped 10 fold, to 2ms. This change in default was not driven by changes in the code in v12, but rather by the realization that the old default was just out of date with modern hardware in most cases. I would have no trouble pushing that change into v11 config; but I don't think doing so would address your main concern, either.
Do you actually have a problem with the amount of IO you are generating, or is it just conjecture? The IO done is mostly sequential, but how important that is would depend on your storage hardware. Do you see latency spikes while the vacuum is happening? Are you charged per IO and your bill is too high? High IO is not inherently a problem, it is only a problem if it causes a problem.
Currently, I have autovacuum_scale_factor = 0.2. Should I decrease it?
If I decrease it it will run more often, although write IO will
decrease but it will lead to more number of time period with high read
IO.
Running more often probably won't decrease your write IO by much if any. Every table/index page with at least one obsolete tuple needs to get written, during every vacuum. Writing one page just to remove one obsolete tuple will cause more writing than waiting until there are a lot of obsolete tuples that can all be removed by one write. You might be writing somewhat less per vacuum, but doing more vacuums will make up for that, and probably far more than make up for it.
There are two approaches:
Reduce autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay for that table so that autovacuum becomes faster. It will still consume I/O, CPU and RAM.
Set the fillfactor for the table to a value less than 100 and make sure that the column you update frequently is not indexed. Then you could get HOT updates which don't require VACUUM.
Our Postgres DB (hosted on Google Cloud SQL with 1 CPU, 3.7 GB of RAM, see below) consists mostly of one big ~90GB table with about ~60 million rows. The usage pattern consists almost exclusively of appends and a few indexed reads near the end of the table. From time to time a few users get deleted, deleting a small percentage of rows scattered across the table.
This all works fine, but every few months an autovacuum gets triggered on that table, which significantly impacts our service's performance for ~8 hours:
Storage usage increases by ~1GB for the duration of the autovacuum (several hours), then slowly returns to the previous value (might eventually drop below it, due to the autovacuum freeing pages)
Database CPU utilization jumps from <10% to ~20%
Disk Read/Write Ops increases from near zero to ~50/second
Database Memory increases slightly, but stays below 2GB
Transaction/sec and ingress/egress bytes are also fairly unaffected, as would be expected
This has the effect of increasing our service's 95th latency percentile from ~100ms to ~0.5-1s during the autovacuum, which in turn triggers our monitoring. The service serves around ten requests per second, with each request consisting of a few simple DB reads/writes that normally have a latency of 2-3ms each.
Here are some monitoring screenshots illustrating the issue:
The DB configuration is fairly vanilla:
The log entry documenting this autovacuum process reads as follows:
system usage: CPU 470.10s/358.74u sec elapsed 38004.58 sec
avg read rate: 2.491 MB/s, avg write rate: 2.247 MB/s
buffer usage: 8480213 hits, 12117505 misses, 10930449 dirtied
tuples: 5959839 removed, 57732135 remain, 4574 are dead but not yet removable
pages: 0 removed, 6482261 remain, 0 skipped due to pins, 0 skipped frozen
automatic vacuum of table "XXX": index scans: 1
Any suggestions what we could tune to reduce the impact of future autovacuums on our service? Or are we doing something wrong?
If you can increase autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay, your autovacuum would run slower and be less invasive.
However, it is usually the best solution to make it faster by setting autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit to 2000 or so. Then it finishes faster.
You could also try to schedule VACUUMs of the table yourself at times when it hurts least.
But frankly, if a single innocuous autovacuum is enough to disturb your operation, you need more I/O bandwidth.