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

Re: Random penalties on GIN index updates?

From: Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Random penalties on GIN index updates?
Date: 2009-10-21 17:58:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote:
> jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc writes:
>> If i understand the technicalities correct then INSERT/UPDATES to the
>> index will be accumulated in the "maintainance_work_mem" and the "user"
>> being unlucky to fill it up will pay the penalty of merging all the
>> changes into the index?
> You can turn off the "fastupdate" index parameter to disable that,
> but I think there may be a penalty in index bloat as well as insertion
> speed.  It would be better to use a more conservative work_mem
> (work_mem, not maintenance_work_mem, is what limits the amount of stuff
> accumulated during normal inserts). 

Ok, I read the manual about that. Seems worth testing, hat I'm seeing is
stuff like this:

... then it went on steady for another 180.000 documents.

Each row is a printout from the application doing INSERTS, it print the
time for each 1000 rows it gets through. It is the 38minutes in the
middle I'm a bit worried about.

work_mem is set to 512MB, that may translate into 180.000 documents in
my system?

What I seems to miss a way to make sure som "background" application is
the one getting the penalty, so a random user doing a single insert
won't get stuck. Is that doable?

It also seems to lock out other inserts while being in this state.


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott CareyDate: 2009-10-21 18:00:37
Subject: Re: Finding rows in table T1 that DO NOT MATCH any row in table T2
Previous:From: phb07@apra.asso.frDate: 2009-10-21 17:55:18
Subject: Re: maintain_cluster_order_v5.patch

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