From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
Date: | 2012-05-30 20:19:20 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wDP-N-xAxDL8Rz3upnY1+rKQBzpBMbNNHpN9VLodq+BA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hm, why aren't we getting a IOS? Just for kicks (assuming this is
>>> test data), can we drop the index on just transitid, leaving the index
>>> on transitid, healpixid? Is enable_indexonlyscan on? Has idt_match
>>> been vacuumed? What kind of plan do you get when do:
>>
>>
>> Okay dropping the index on transitid solved the issue with indexonlyscan but
>> didn't solve the original problem. Actually the indexonlyscan made the
>> sequential queries faster but not the parallel ones.
>
> How big is idt_match? What if you drop all indexes on idt_match,
> encouraging all the backends to do hash joins against it, which occur
> in local memory and so don't have contention?
You just missed his post -- it's only 3G. can you run your 'small'
working set against 48gb shared buffers?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-30 20:25:03 | Re: FailedAssertion("!(PrivateRefCount[i] == 0)", File: "bufmgr.c", Line: 1741 |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-30 20:15:14 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |