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

Re: Long Running Update

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Harry Mantheakis <harry(dot)mantheakis(at)riskcontrollimited(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Long Running Update
Date: 2011-06-23 17:18:23
Message-ID: BANLkTi=gt+LpTijBxtDp+k49fLFOFFZWQw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Harry Mantheakis
<harry(dot)mantheakis(at)riskcontrollimited(dot)com> wrote:
> TOP, FREE and VMSTAT utilities indicate that only about half of the 6GB of
> memory is being used, so I have no reason to believe that the server is
> struggling.

You have a hinky idea of server load.

Mind you, there are lots of ways in which it could be struggling,
other than memory usage.
Like IO, CPU, lock contention...

In my experience, such huge updates struggle a lot with fsync and
random I/O when updating the indices.
It will be a lot faster if you can drop all indices (including the
PK), if you can.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-06-23 19:32:24
Subject: Re: Long Running Update
Previous:From: Robert KlemmeDate: 2011-06-23 15:55:35
Subject: Re: bitmask index

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