From: | Rene Romero Benavides <rene(dot)romero(dot)b(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Michel Pelletier <pelletier(dot)michel(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at, pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Gigantic load average spikes |
Date: | 2019-04-02 04:25:09 |
Message-ID: | CANaGW09mHYLTWeO0s0o5t1KBUq4_rKrgn2M_Qn49ihHAHsfc+A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:35 AM rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> wrote:
> On 04/01/2019 08:30 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:49 PM David Rowley <
> david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps a bunch of processes waiting on the access exclusive lock on
>> the materialized view being released?
>>
>> log_lock_waits might help you if the MV takes more than a second to
>> refresh, otherwise, you might need to have a look at ungranted locks
>> in pg_locks and see if the number of locks spikes during the refresh.
>>
>
> I think David's got the right idea here. Like he said, investigate
> pg_locks, if it is the refresh materialized view, you can avoid the problem
> by doing 'REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY'. You will need at least
> one unique index on the table.
>
>
> It is actually refreshed concurrently.
>
>
>
>> --
>> David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>>
>>
>>
> Hi. How many vcores does the server have? what's the load average we're
talking about? do you mind sharing your postgresql configuration?
--
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 김준형 | 2019-04-02 05:03:57 | Fwd: Postgresql with nextcloud in Windows Server |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2019-04-02 04:21:51 | Re: Postgresql with nextcloud in Windows Server |