From: | "Dan Boeriu" <dan(dot)boeriu(at)roost(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, "PostgreSQL bugs" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild |
Date: | 2009-07-30 22:11:39 |
Message-ID: | EF2E22898E35844BA4479BBF97078AC1FD0ABE@be10.exg4.exghost.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Is there a workaround?
To us this is pretty bad news; we receive updates from several partners and constantly update the counts like in the example I sent you...
Obviously we can serialize the updates but that would be pretty sad thing to do in a database.
Realistically - when will we see this fixed (I understand it has pretty low priority...) ?
Thanks a bunch for your time,
Dan Boeriu
Senior Architect - Roost.com
P: (415) 742 8056
Roost.com - 2008 Inman Award Winner for Most Innovative New Technology
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Thu 7/30/2009 2:34 PM
To: Dan Boeriu
Cc: Robert Haas; Craig Ringer; PostgreSQL bugs
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild
"Dan Boeriu" <dan(dot)boeriu(at)roost(dot)com> writes:
> Attached is the reproducible test case - I was able to reproduce the problem on 32 and 64 bit 8.3.6 and 8.4.0 RedHat 5.3 kernel 2.6.18-128.1.16.el5 #1 SMP
I looked at this a bit. It's the same issue discussed at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2008-09/msg00045.php
namely, that the second update finds itself trying to update a large
number of tuples that were already updated since its snapshot was taken.
That means it has to re-verify that the updated versions of those tuples
meet its WHERE qualification. That's done by a function EvalPlanQual
that's pretty darn inefficient for complex queries like this one.
It's essentially redoing the join (and recomputing the whole sub-SELECT)
for each row that needs to be updated.
Someday I'd like us to redesign that mechanism, but don't hold
your breath ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Niranjan Pandit | 2009-07-31 03:02:57 | BUG #4956: Array Construct array() returning blank result |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-30 21:34:48 | Re: BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild |