From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: lazy vxid locks, v1 |
Date: | 2011-06-14 12:02:10 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikYSXoez7b7qC8Bqfpgr0kxJEFs1A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Profiling reveals that the system spends enormous amounts of CPU time
>> in s_lock. LWLOCK_STATS reveals that the only lwlock with significant
>> amounts of blocking is the BufFreelistLock;
>
> This is curious. Clearly the entire working set fits in RAM, or you
> wouldn't be getting number like this. But does the entire working set
> fit in shared_buffers? If so, you shouldn't see any traffic on
> BufFreelistLock once all the data is read in. I've only seen
> contention here when all data fits in OS cache memory but not in
> shared_buffers.
Yeah, that does seem odd:
rhaas=# select pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size(current_database()));
pg_size_pretty
----------------
1501 MB
(1 row)
rhaas=# select pg_size_pretty(pg_table_size('pgbench_accounts'));
pg_size_pretty
----------------
1281 MB
(1 row)
rhaas=# select pg_size_pretty(pg_table_size('pgbench_accounts_pkey'));
pg_size_pretty
----------------
214 MB
(1 row)
rhaas=# show shared_buffers;
shared_buffers
----------------
8GB
(1 row)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-14 12:02:57 | Re: 9.1 beta1 error |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-06-14 11:03:05 | Re: SSI work for 9.1 |