| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: issue with gininsert under very high load |
| Date: | 2014-02-13 23:53:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20140213235343.GF4910@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-13 18:49:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-02-13 16:15:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Something like the attached? Can somebody who's seen this problem confirm
> >> this improves matters?
>
> > Hm. Won't that possiby lead to the fast tuple list growing unboundedly?
> > I think we would need to at least need to stop using the fast tuple
> > mechanism during gininsert() if it's already too big and do plain
> > inserts.
>
> No, because we've already got a process working on cleaning it out.
Well, appending to the fast tuple list will normally be fully cached io,
cleaning it up not so much.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-14 00:39:04 | Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-13 23:49:21 | Re: issue with gininsert under very high load |