Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?
Date: 2007-07-26 15:51:16
Message-ID: 1185465076.4190.87.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 11:27 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:

> However at 900 Users where the big drop in throughput occurs:
> It gives a different top "consumer" of time:


                postgres`LWLockAcquire+0x1c8
>               postgres`SimpleLruReadPage+0x1ac
>               postgres`TransactionIdGetStatus+0x14
>               postgres`TransactionLogFetch+0x58

TransactionIdGetStatus doesn't directly call SimpleLruReadPage().
Presumably the compiler has been rearranging things??

Looks like you're out of clog buffers. It seems like the clog buffers
aren't big enough to hold clog pages for long enough and the SELECT FOR
SHARE processing is leaving lots of additional read locks that are
increasing the number of clog requests for older xids.

Try the enclosed patch.
 
-- 
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment: clog_buffers.v1.test.patch
Description: text/x-patch (702 bytes)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Brandon ShaltonDate: 2007-07-26 16:18:55
Subject: disk filling up
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-07-26 15:42:48
Subject: Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group