| From: | Nicolas Charles <nicolas(dot)charles(at)normation(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Shijia Wei <shijiawei(at)utexas(dot)edu>,Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Consecutive Query Executions with Increasing Execution Time |
| Date: | 2019-12-16 22:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | D0FEC9C2-0901-4C91-8641-6A5B8699C10C@normation.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Could it be that your CPUs is warming and throttling? You didn't mention the platform used, so I'm not sure whether it's a server or a laptop
Nicolas
Le 16 décembre 2019 21:50:17 GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> a écrit :
>Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
>> Why do the first and the twentieth executions of the query have
>almost
>> identical "buffers shared/read" numbers? That seems odd.
>
>It's repeat execution of the same query, so that doesn't seem odd to
>me.
>
>This last set of numbers suggests that there's some issue with the
>parallel execution infrastructure in particular, though I don't see
>what
>it would be. Doesn't execParallel wait for the workers to exit before
>the leader finishes its query? If so, how is there any persistent
>state
>that would interfere with a later query?
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-16 22:48:16 | Re: Consecutive Query Executions with Increasing Execution Time |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-16 20:50:17 | Re: Consecutive Query Executions with Increasing Execution Time |