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

Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?

From: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?
Date: 2007-07-27 12:49:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Yes I can try to breakup the Shared and exclusive time..

Also yes I use commit delays =10, it helps out a lot in reducing IO load..

I will try out the patch soon.


Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 17:17 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
>>              Lock Id   Combined Time (ns)
>>           XidGenLock            194966200
>>        WALInsertLock            517955000
>>      CLogControlLock            679665100
>>         WALWriteLock           2838716200
>>        ProcArrayLock          44181002600
> Is this the time the lock is held for or the time that we wait for that
> lock? It would be good to see the break down of time separately for
> shared and exclusive.
> Can we have a table like this:
> 	LockId,LockMode,SumTimeLockHeld,SumTimeLockWait
>> Top Wait time   seems to come from the following code path for 
>> ProcArrayLock:
>>              Lock Id            Mode           Count
>>        ProcArrayLock       Exclusive              21
>>              Lock Id   Combined Time (ns)
>>        ProcArrayLock           5255937500
>>              Lock Id   Combined Time (ns)
>>               postgres`LWLockAcquire+0x1f0
>>               postgres`CommitTransaction+0x104
>>               postgres`CommitTransactionCommand+0xbc
>>               postgres`finish_xact_command+0x78
> Well thats pretty weird. That code path clearly only happens once per
> transaction and ought to be fast. The other code paths that take
> ProcArrayLock like TransactionIdIsInProgress() and GetSnapshotData()
> ought to spend more time holding the lock. Presumably you are running
> with a fair number of SERIALIZABLE transactions? 
> Are you running with commit_delay > 0? Its possible that the call to
> CountActiveBackends() is causing pinging of the procarray by other
> backends while we're trying to read it during CommitTransaction(). If
> so, try the attached patch.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2007-07-27 13:44:31
Subject: Re: disk filling up
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-07-27 09:15:27
Subject: Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group