From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: issue with gininsert under very high load |
Date: | 2014-02-12 20:33:38 |
Message-ID: | 19237.1392237218@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-02-12 14:39:37 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On investigation I found that a number of processes were locked waiting for
>> one wedged process to end its transaction, which never happened (this
>> transaction should normally take milliseconds). oprofile revealed that
>> postgres was spending 87% of its time in s_lock(), and strace on the wedged
>> process revealed that it was in a tight loop constantly calling select(). It
>> did not respond to a SIGTERM.
> That's a deficiency of the gin fastupdate cache: a) it bases it's size
> on work_mem which usually makes it *far* too big b) it doesn't perform the
> cleanup in one go if it can get a suitable lock, but does independent
> locking for each entry. That usually leads to absolutely horrific
> performance under concurreny.
I'm not sure that what Andrew is describing can fairly be called a
concurrent-performance problem. It sounds closer to a stuck lock.
Are you sure you've diagnosed it correctly?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-02-12 20:39:17 | Re: issue with gininsert under very high load |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-12 20:28:06 | Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary |