Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2012-06-01 03:44:59
Message-ID: CAMkU=1xf4HTO9zB7GifiAP7ovGpTTGDU+rsmKEtaYSx5wcGG-g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> But anyway, is idt_match a fairly static table?  If so, I'd partition
>> that into 16 tables, and then have each one of your tasks join against
>> a different one of those tables.  That should relieve the contention
>> on the index root block, and might have some other benefits as well.
>
>
> No, idt_match is getting filled by multi-threaded copy() and then joined
> with 4 other big tables like idt_phot. The result is then split into
> partitions.

That does make things more complicated. But you could you partition
it at that level and then do the joins partition-wise?

I don't have much experience at data partitioning (well, I do, but the
experience is with partitioning in Perl with terabytes of flat files,
not in PG :) ) but I think that once you have your partitioning keys
you want to apply them the same way up and down the data set.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-06-01 03:46:00 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2012-06-01 00:58:11 Re: slow dropping of tables, DropRelFileNodeBuffers, tas