Why would log_lock_waits affect a query plan?

From: Evan Martin <postgresql2(at)realityexists(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Why would log_lock_waits affect a query plan?
Date: 2017-07-19 20:43:03
Message-ID: 7b990298-8124-9eac-37a0-b1fd574ebf2f@realityexists.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

I have an application that imports a lot of data and the does some
queries on it to build some caches in the database, all in one long
transaction. One of those cache updates repeatedly calls a plpgsql
function, which internally does some SQL queries. Sometimes this is
much, much slower than usual: 3-7 hours instead of 12-15 minutes. It was
totally reproducible when it happened, though (running on the same
machine, same input data).

It turns out that the problem only happens when the "log_lock_waits"
setting was OFF! Many machines had it ON (to troubleshoot a different
problem), so they never experienced it.

I eventually tracked it down to the query plan chosen for one particular
query in the plpgsql function: using a Nested Loop makes it fast and
using a Hash Join makes it very slow. Running an ANALYZE on one of the
tables involved fixes the problem - the fast query plan is chosen all
the time. This itself is a bit strange, because I was already running
ANALYZE on all tables after the data import - it seems that I needed to
run it a second time? But what I'd really like to understand is: why did
setting log_lock_waits to ON always change the query plan to use a
Nested Loop? It's just not something I'd ever expect to affect a query plan.

By the way, I also found that the problem does not occur if I commit
before the cache updates. This was with PostgreSQL 9.6.3 running on
Windows x64, if that matters.

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luca Looz 2017-07-19 21:13:43 Re: UPDATE column without FK fires other FK triggers constraint check
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-07-19 20:28:34 Re: ALTER COLUMN, trading a DOMAIN for its base datatype