| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lock contention on parallel COPY ? |
| Date: | 2008-09-26 18:00:02 |
| Message-ID: | 23005.1222452002@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> samples % symbol name
>> 55526 16.5614 LWLockAcquire
>> 29721 8.8647 DoCopy
>> 26581 7.9281 CopyReadLine
>> 25105 7.4879 LWLockRelease
>> 15743 4.6956 PinBuffer
>> 14725 4.3919 heap_formtuple
> Probably loading a table with a generated PK or loading data in
> ascending sequence, so its contending heavily for the rightmost edge of
> the index.
No, given that DoCopy and CopyReadLine are right up there, I think we're
still looking at the COPY phase, not index building.
The profile will probably change completely once index building
starts...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Browne | 2008-09-26 18:02:42 | Re: PostgreSQL future ideas |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-26 17:56:36 | Re: lock contention on parallel COPY ? |