From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btree index items |
Date: | 2020-04-10 00:25:08 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=ANZ4tAnr6CjLXrkvsZs29KqfHaTGZ_T_+3dWPVtnpuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:37 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We saw the issue on our PG11 clusters. The specific index we noticed
> in the wal dump (I don't think we confirmed if there were others) as
> one on a `created_at` column, to give you an idea of cardinality.
You tend to get a lot of problems with indexes like that when there
are consistent updates (actually, that's more of a thing with an
updated_at index). But non-HOT updates alone might result in what you
could describe as "updates" to the index.
With Postgres 11, a low cardinality index could place new/successor
duplicate index tuples (those needed for non-HOT updates) on a more or
less random leaf page (you'll recall that this is determined by the
old "getting tired" logic). This is the kind of thing I had in mind
when I asked Sawada-san about it.
Was this a low cardinality index in the way I describe? If it was,
then we can hope (and maybe even verify) that the Postgres 12 work
noticeably ameliorates the problem.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-04-10 00:32:22 | Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btree index items |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-09 23:49:07 | Re: more ALTER .. DEPENDS ON EXTENSION fixes |