| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look? |
| Date: | 2007-07-26 15:51:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1185465076.4190.87.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 11:27 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> However at 900 Users where the big drop in throughput occurs:
> It gives a different top "consumer" of time:
postgres`LWLockAcquire+0x1c8
> postgres`SimpleLruReadPage+0x1ac
> postgres`TransactionIdGetStatus+0x14
> postgres`TransactionLogFetch+0x58
TransactionIdGetStatus doesn't directly call SimpleLruReadPage().
Presumably the compiler has been rearranging things??
Looks like you're out of clog buffers. It seems like the clog buffers
aren't big enough to hold clog pages for long enough and the SELECT FOR
SHARE processing is leaving lots of additional read locks that are
increasing the number of clog requests for older xids.
Try the enclosed patch.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| clog_buffers.v1.test.patch | text/x-patch | 702 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brandon Shalton | 2007-07-26 16:18:55 | disk filling up |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-26 15:42:48 | Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look? |