From: | Joshua Banton <bantonj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: High System CPU Usage on Selects Seemingly Caused By Vacuum of Same Table |
Date: | 2025-01-31 22:59:42 |
Message-ID: | CAHkYM9YXAXGbmWTNhPGMHjS2zgcuOYsXjQr2B1h2CS3KO5E=NQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
There are not that many tables, 175.
There are a decent number of transactions on the database, 35k a second
during the day. I ran a vacuum verbose on table1 today and got this output
on the pages frozen.
frozen: 2813436 pages from table (0.70% of total) had 7028123 tuples frozen
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 5:46 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 5:28 PM Joshua Banton <bantonj(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The issue mostly manifests near the end of the "scanning heap" phase of
> vacuuming of one of our largest tables, we'll call table1. RDS Performance
> Insights reports that selects on table1 start to wait on cpu, where
> previously it didn't even show up in the top 25 queries by wait. It doesn't
> always happen, but if there is a larger than usual number of selects on
> table1 it is more likely to happen.
>
> Does this database also have many tables? As in thousands of tables?
>
> I am reminded of this issue:
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/da3205c4-5b07-a65c-6c26-a293c6464fdb%40postgrespro.ru
>
> I've heard of this happening when an aggressive VACUUM updates
> relfrozenxid on a larger table.
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tobias Orlamünde | 2025-02-03 14:11:05 | Performance loss after upgrading from 12.15 to 17.2 |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-01-31 22:45:48 | Re: High System CPU Usage on Selects Seemingly Caused By Vacuum of Same Table |