From: | Ioana Danes <ioanasoftware(at)yahoo(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Why do I have reading from the swap partition? |
Date: | 2011-07-22 18:19:13 |
Message-ID: | 1311358753.67746.YahooMailClassic@web120118.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Everyone,
I am trying to debug a slowness that is happening on one of my production sites and I would like to ask you for some help.
This is my environment:
-----------------------
Dedicated server running:
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (x86_64):
VERSION = 11
PATCHLEVEL = 1
RAM = 16GB
Postgres 9.0.3:
shared_buffers = 4GB
work_mem = 2MB
maintenance_work_mem = 2GB
wal_buffers = 1MB
checkpoint_segments =16
effective_cache_size = 8GB
And this is my scenario:
------------------------
I have a table with 16 million records and few indexes for that table.
I also have a query from that table (few filters no joins) that returns 6.000 records. I have the proper indexes and the plan looks good. I don't think the query or the table structure are important that is why I did not post them.
I reboot the server and start postgres:
I run a query first time and it takes ~ 2.5 seconds
I run the same query for the second time and it takes < 1 sec (because it is cached)
All good here.
Now I reboot the server again and start postgres:
I do a select * from a 8 GB table (a different one then the one used in the query). At a point it starts using swap space on disk. Once it starts swapping I still let it run for couple of minutes and the I stop it (CTRL+C).
After that I have 14 GB free memory and in postgres I only have about 30000 buffers used in pg_buffercache, the rest up to 524288 being empty.
If I run my query again then the query takes 60 seconds and I notice reads from the swap partition.
Now my question is why would I have a read from the swap partition when using a table that was not accessed since restart so it is not cached and a have a bunch of free memory and shared buffers?
Could this be a postgres issue?
Thank you in advance,
Ioana
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2011-07-22 18:20:09 | Re: interesting finding on order by behaviour |
Previous Message | Reid Thompson | 2011-07-22 17:36:05 | Re: interesting finding on order by behaviour |