Re: very long updates very small tables

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Lars Feistner" <feistner(at)uni-heidelberg(dot)de>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: very long updates very small tables
Date: 2011-03-30 16:54:52
Message-ID: 4D931A0C020000250003BF80@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Lars Feistner <feistner(at)uni-heidelberg(dot)de> wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 09:28 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Lars Feistner<feistner(at)uni-heidelberg(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>>> The log tells me that certain update statements take sometimes
>>> about 3-10 minutes. But we are talking about updates on tables
>>> with 1000 to 10000 rows and updates that are supposed to update
>>> 1 row.
>>
>> The top possibilities that come to my mind are:

> [all eliminated as possibilities]

If you haven't already done so, you should probably turn on
checkpoint logging to see if this corresponds to checkpoint
activity. If it does, you can try cranking up how aggressive your
background writer is, and perhaps limiting your shared_buffers to
something around the size of your RAID controller's BBU cache. (I
hope you have a RAID controller with BBU cache configured for
write-back, anyway.)

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Strange, John W 2011-03-30 20:56:22 COPY with high # of clients, partitioned table locking issues?
Previous Message pasman pasmański 2011-03-30 15:24:18 Re: very long updates very small tables