| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Very slow planning performance on partition table |
| Date: | 2014-07-28 17:29:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1ydmpt9XRMxt0sPNnQsXEoF_c7bgp2kHxtDbPNGg5Vj5w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Does that indicate something? seems it's waiting for some lock.
>
> Yeah, that's what the stack trace suggests. Have you looked into pg_locks
> and pg_stat_activity to see which lock it wants and what's holding said
> lock?
>
If it were waiting on a pg_locks lock, the semop should be coming
from ProcSleep, not from LWLockAcquire, shouldn't it?
I'm guessing he has a lot of connections, and each connection is locking
each partition in shared mode in rapid fire, generating spin-lock or
cache-line contention.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rural Hunter | 2014-07-29 00:10:35 | Re: Very slow planning performance on partition table |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-07-28 14:20:26 | Re: Checkpoint_segments optimal value |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | worthy7 | 2014-07-28 19:55:13 | Re: Full text search with ORDER BY performance issue |
| Previous Message | Rural Hunter | 2014-07-28 13:10:32 | Re: Very slow planning performance on partition table |