From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | lars <lhofhansl(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database |
Date: | 2011-07-12 16:23:36 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0x4bCecWRdpRGypckHHfkZiBCv3=7rCqMswcHj3hRYMjA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> lars <lhofhansl(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I am not trying to optimize this particular use case, but rather
>> to understand what Postgres is doing, and why SELECT queries are
>> affected negatively (sometimes severely) by concurrent (or even
>> preceding) UPDATEs at all when the database resides in the cache
>> completely.
>
> I think we're stuck in terms of trying to guess what is causing the
> behavior you are seeing. Things which would help get it "unstuck":
>
> (1) More information about your load process. Looking at the code,
> I could sort of see a possible path to this behavior if the load
> process involves any adjustments beyond straight INSERTs or COPYs
> in.
>
> (2) You could poke around with a profiler, a debugger, and/or
> the contrib/pageinspect module to sort things out.
hm, also strace on the 'select' process might give some clues.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Splivalo | 2011-07-12 18:11:46 | Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower... |
Previous Message | Gael Le Mignot | 2011-07-12 15:44:08 | Re: Memory usage of auto-vacuum |