| From: | Alessandro Gagliardi <alessandro(at)path(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: set autovacuum=off |
| Date: | 2012-02-23 20:28:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAAB3BB+PKcm0i0s7yz00r8G_6u5dtV8y7W9wW2kD0H0svjbG-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I'm unable to make sense of pg_locks. The vast majority are
locktype='transactionid', mode='ExclusiveLock', granted=t. There are some
'relation' locks with mode='RowExclusiveLock' and fewer with
'AccessShareLock'. I have no idea what I should be looking for here.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Alessandro Gagliardi
> <alessandro(at)path(dot)com> wrote:
> > around the same time as disabling auto-vacuum, so that could account for
> the
> > coincidental speed up). I'm not sure what else I could be doing wrong.
> It's
> > definitely better than it was a few days ago, but I still see "LOG:
> > duration: 77.315 ms statement: COMMIT" every minute or two.
> >
>
> Have you considered that you may have lock contention? Sampling
> pg_locks may be illuminating; based on your description the lock
> contention would be intermittent, so I wouldn't trust an n=1 test.
>
> -p
>
> --
> Peter van Hardenberg
> San Francisco, California
> "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt." -- Kurt Vonnegut
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alessandro Gagliardi | 2012-02-23 20:40:45 | Re: set autovacuum=off |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-23 20:19:45 | Re: [PERFORM] Disable-spinlocks while compiling postgres 9.1 for ARM Cortex A8 |