From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
Cc: | sushant354(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres 9.1: Adding rows to table causing too much latency in other queries |
Date: | 2011-12-19 20:47:16 |
Message-ID: | 16431.1324327636@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 17:30, Sushant Sinha <sushant354(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> This never happened earlier with postgres 9.0 Is there a known issue
>> with Postgres 9.1? Or how to report this problem?
> What *did* change in 9.1 is that there's new GIN cost estimation in
> the planner. If you do EXPLAIN ANALYZE for your queries, do the plans
> differ for 9.0 or 9.1?
I trolled the commit log a bit, and AFAICS the only significant GIN
changes between 9.1 and reasonably late-model 9.0 are the cost
estimation patch and this one:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=73912e7fbd1b52c51d914214abbec1cda64595f2
which makes me wonder if maybe the OP has a very large fraction of empty
or null entries in his data. Previously those would have resulted in no
insertion traffic on a GIN index, but now they do.
> Another thought -- have you read about the GIN "fast updates" feature?
> This existed in 9.0 too.
Yeah, so it seems unlikely to be that, or at least not that by itself.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-19 20:50:02 | Re: Postgres 9.1: Adding rows to table causing too much latency in other queries |
Previous Message | Gianni Ciolli | 2011-12-19 20:43:09 | Re: Autonomous subtransactions |