From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | peter plachta <pplachta(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performa(dot)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Table copy with SERIALIZABLE is incredibly slow |
Date: | 2023-07-31 06:30:39 |
Message-ID: | b8e6ebbdf1f89cefe06577f9e864e132ff00a99c.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 2023-07-30 at 23:00 -0600, peter plachta wrote:
> Background is we're trying a pg_repack-like functionality to compact a 500Gb/145Gb
> index (x2) table from which we deleted 80% rows. Offline is not an option. The table
> has a moderate (let's say 100QPS) I/D workload running.
>
> The typical procedure for this type of thing is basically CDC:
>
> 1. create 'log' table/create trigger
> 2. under SERIALIZABLE: select * from current_table insert into new_table
>
> What we're finding is that for the 1st 30 mins the rate is 10Gb/s, then it drops to
> 1Mb/s and stays there.... and 22 hours later the copy is still going and now the log
> table is huge so we know the replay will also take a very long time.
>
> ===
>
> Q: what are some ways in which we could optimize the copy?
>
> Btw this is Postgres 9.6
>
> (we tried unlogged table (that did nothing), we tried creating indexes after
> (that helped), we're experimenting with RRI)
Why are you doing this the hard way, when pg_squeeze or pg_repack could do it?
You definitely should not be using PostgreSQL 9.6 at this time.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dane Foster | 2023-08-04 14:59:19 | Plan weirdness. A sort produces more rows than the node beneath it |
Previous Message | peter plachta | 2023-07-31 05:00:15 | Table copy with SERIALIZABLE is incredibly slow |