From: | David Mullineux <dmullx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | James Pang <jamespang886(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: huge shared_blocks_hit one select but manually run very fast |
Date: | 2024-12-21 16:40:54 |
Message-ID: | CAGsyd8U0cgD=2wTG5HAsbs=e=9ynz3r55tH56xzQeUQYju94Yw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Depends on a lot of thongs...Visibility map sounds like it's impacted here.
Are your inserts towards the index (like a monotonically increasing serial
id) or scattered around the index values ? How big is the table index
and shared buffers ? An example would really help
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, 11:51 James Pang, <jamespang886(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
> we have a simple select .... from table where ... (that mache the
> index) , table has 80million rows. when many application sessions run the
> query and at the same time some other sessions doing insert into ... this
> table. from pg_stat_statements, shared_blks_hit show 31652 / per call. we
> see very high cpu almost 100% cpu during application workload test, and
> high LWLock BufferMapping waiting for these querys. But manually run the
> sql show only 2148 shared_blks_hit/ per call. this is a simple sql, from
> pg_profile we did see it use same index scan as manually running. What
> could be possible reason leading so big difference with shared_blks_hit ?
> PGv14.8
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Pang | 2024-12-22 03:38:37 | Re: huge shared_blocks_hit one select but manually run very fast |
Previous Message | James Pang | 2024-12-21 11:50:40 | huge shared_blocks_hit one select but manually run very fast |