From: | Aleksei Arefjev <aleksei(dot)arefjev(at)nordicgaming(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | transactions start time |
Date: | 2012-07-24 11:14:35 |
Message-ID: | CAFTgB8iMS8LYLbdCTmv=RBzDHhFaCvEBG9CAD3EyDxzuBvyTMA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
In statistical reports gathered by PgBadger on our PostgreSQL databases
almost always we have in "Queries that took up the most time" report table
information about transactions start time ('BEGIN;' command). Something
like that in example below:
2 3h34m52.26s 48,556,167 0.00s BEGIN;
0.82s | BEGIN;
0.82s | BEGIN;
0.82s | BEGIN;
0.81s | BEGIN;
0.81s | BEGIN;
0.81s | BEGIN;
0.80s | BEGIN;
0.80s | BEGIN;
0.79s | BEGIN;
0.79s | BEGIN;
Databases placed on different hardware, OS - Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
9.1
So, questions are:
1. Is this a normal situation with transactions start time ( BEGIN method) ?
2. How can we reduce transactions start time if it's possible in principle?
3. What happens in PostgreSQL on transaction starting time? Can someone
describe this process in detail? (of course, I saw in PostgreSQL source
code, for example, definition such kind functions, like StartTransaction
function, but it's not so easy to understand for third-party researcher,
that all of these operations mean in real for performance)
Best Regards
Aleksei
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | AI Rumman | 2012-07-24 11:35:54 | Re: Why do I need more time with partition table? |
Previous Message | AI Rumman | 2012-07-24 10:42:34 | Why do I need more time with partition table? |