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,
Senior Architect - Roost.com
P: (415) 742 8056
Roost.com - 2008 Inman Award Winner for Most Innovative New Technology
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
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
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Niranjan Pandit||Date: 2009-07-31 03:02:57|
|Subject: BUG #4956: Array Construct array() returning blank result|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-07-30 21:34:48|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild |