Re: postgres getting slow under heavy load though autivacuum is enabled

From: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
To: "tamanna madaan" <tamanna(dot)madan(at)globallogic(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres getting slow under heavy load though autivacuum is enabled
Date: 2009-06-09 15:04:10
Message-ID: 20090609110410.2951b4b7.wmoran@potentialtech.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

In response to "tamanna madaan" <tamanna(dot)madan(at)globallogic(dot)com>:
>
> I am using postgres 8.1.2 with slony 1.1.5 used for replication between two nodes. Very high number of db operations like (2.8 million inserts, 1.4 million update and 4.5 lakhs deletes.) are being done on db in one transaction and this is repeated for 5-6 times a day at an interval of let say 2 hours. This process is runnning for 5 consective days. It is obeserved that db is getting very slow with time. The number of dead tuples getting increased in pg_listener, sl_log_1 and sl_seqlog tables with time though I have autovacuum enabled and slony related tables like (sl_log_1 , sl_seqlog etc) are configured not to be processed by autovacuum . Please let me know what could be the reason of increasing dead tuples in these tables and postgres getting slow.

The slony docs state, and I quote:
"Long running transactions are Evil"
http://slony.info/documentation/slonyadmin.html#BESTPRACTICES

I'm going to guess that a single transaction with multi millions of
tuple changes is about as evil as it gets.

This is a known shortcoming of Slony. You're going to need carefully
tuned vacuum, well designed schema, adequate hardware, and clever
schema design to keep a system like that healthy. That is, if you can't
figure out a way to avoid the huge transactions.

Considering you mention nothing about your hardware, it's possible that
you simply don't have enough. We do some huge transactions over Slony
(although not into the millions per transaction) but we have enough
free RAM, free disk space, and free CPU cycles to clean up after it so
it's not hurting us.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2009-06-09 15:04:26 Re: column name gets substitudes inside an execute statement of a trigger function. how to avoid it?!
Previous Message Brandon Metcalf 2009-06-09 14:56:04 Re: limit table to one row