| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Rankin <srankin(at)motus(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Huge shared hit for small table |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 20:34:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzm60__Ako=hy2-_5wsn==Sf+nC2-d2_Vt=TJSHKohOKbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:32 PM Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Could there be a long-open transaction, which is preventing hint-bits from getting on set on the table rows, as well on the index rows?
Contention on a small number of rows may also be a factor.
> A reindex would not by itself fix the problem if it were the long open transaction. But if the long open transaction held a sufficient lock on the table, then the reindex would block until the transaction went away on its own, at which point the problem would go away on its own, so it might **appear** to have fixed the problem.
That seems like the simplest and most likely explanation to me, even
though it isn't particularly simple.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Rankin | 2019-11-04 20:38:36 | Re: Huge shared hit for small table |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-11-04 20:31:52 | Re: Huge shared hit for small table |