From: | francis picabia <fpicabia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to log 'user time' in postgres logs |
Date: | 2019-08-28 18:36:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+AKB6FETcp8CMZxJ0Q-PgvKxYtU2BVQ=QvDNQ9dr05dhyoTwQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
The server was running Moodle. The slow load time was noticed when loading
a quiz containing
multiple images. All Apache log results showed a 6 seconds or a multiple
of 6 for how long
it took to retrieve each image.
Interestingly, if I did a wget, on the server, to the image link (which was
processed through a pluginfile.php URL)
even the HTML page returned of "please login first" took consistently 6
seconds. Never 2, 3, 4, 5 or 7, 8, 9...
So whatever was wrong, there was a 6 second penalty for this. We found the
problem
outside of the quizzes as well, so it wasn't a single part of the PHP
code. In addition, our development
server with a clone of data, database, apps, etc., was fast at doing any of
the tests.
Of course a database brought in with a dump will not include any of the
cruft
DB structures, so the dev server was free of the problem (and it had fewer
cores, memory, etc).
I was not suspecting PostgreSQL as the culprit, because all query times in
the log showed
roughly 1 ms response. I could tail -f the log file while loading a quiz
to watch the times
reported.
Last night the vacuum was run (on a database of about 40GB if dumped), and
since
then the quizzes and everything run as fast as would be expected. It had
run
for about 1.5 months without vacuum.
Apache, PHP and Postgres all on the same server. Memory and CPUs not
taxed, load kept level
while the problem quizzes were being tested.
Given this experience, I'd like something that reflected the true times
Postgres was spending
on any work it was doing.
The other possibility was it just didn't log the slower times, but I have
seen larger numbers
in the 10,000 ms range in the night when some backups and housekeeping
happens.
All log related settings:
checkpoint_segments = 12
logging_collector = on
log_destination = 'stderr'
log_directory = 'pg_log'
log_filename = 'postgresql-%a.log'
log_truncate_on_rotation = on
log_rotation_age = 1440
log_rotation_size = 0
log_min_messages = info
log_min_error_statement = debug1
log_duration = on
log_line_prefix = '<%t>'
I know it does sound strange, but this is what we battled with for 2.5 days
until the light
came on that the vacuum had been set to off on the target system during
server migration.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:07 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 8/28/19 5:36 AM, francis picabia wrote:
> >
> > Recently had a problem where autovacuum was accidentally left off
> > and the database took 6 seconds for every task from PHP.
> > I had no clue the database was the issue because I
> > had the minimal
> >
> > log_duration = on
> > log_line_prefix = '<%t>'
> >
> > With those settings all queries seen were roughly 1ms
> >
> > I need this log to show the true time it takes to get a result back.
> >
> > In the Linux world we have the time command which shows the user
> > time reflecting all overhead added up. I'd like postgres to show
> > times like that and then if there are problems I can look further,
> > change logging details, etc..
> >
> > I checked docs, googled, and didn't see anything obvious.
>
> I'm having a hard time believing autovacuum was involved in this, given
> you say the queries took only 1ms on average. That would have been the
> part that would have been impacted by bloated tables/out-of-date
> statistics.
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1) How did you arrive at the 6 second figure?
>
> 2) Is the PHP application on the same server as the database?
>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2019-08-28 19:08:46 | Re: Recomended front ends? |
Previous Message | Michael Lewis | 2019-08-28 18:27:51 | Re: [ext] Re: Pointers towards identifying bulk import bottleneck (walwriter tuning?) |