[BUGS] BUG #8163: simultaneous nearly identical update queries execute extremely slowly

2013-05-15 Thread tcook
The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:  8163
Logged by:  Todd Cook
Email address:  tc...@blackducksoftware.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.16
Operating system:   Fedora 14
Description:

When nearly identical update queries arrive simultaneously, the first one to
execute runs normally, but subsequent executions run _extremely_ slowly. 
We've seen this behaviour in production, and the contrived test case below
reproduces the issue.

test= select version() ;
  version   
   

 PostgreSQL 8.4.16 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4.4.4 20100726 (Red Hat 4.4.4-13), 64-bit


To set up:

create table prof as select i as id, i::text col1, (i*2)::text col2 ,
(i*3)::text col3, i*2 col4, md5((i % 5999)::text) as hash, (i % 6000)::text
as hint, (i*4)::text col6, i*5 col7, i*6 col8 from
generate_series(1,3600) i ;
create table tree as select 'fixed16charstrng'::text as changeme, md5((i %
20)::text) as hash from generate_series(1,40) i ;
create index tree_hash_idx on tree(hash) ;

The problematic query run in isolation:

explain analyze update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select
hash from prof where hint = '2500') ;
  QUERY PLAN
 
--
 Nested Loop  (cost=198.75..1000104.44 rows=11583 width=39) (actual
time=6765.316..6871.167 rows=11998 loops=1)
   -  HashAggregate  (cost=198.75..198.76 rows=1 width=33) (actual
time=6765.264..6768.259 rows=5999 loops=1)
 -  Seq Scan on prof  (cost=0.00..184.15 rows=5840 width=33)
(actual time=1.351..6755.691 rows=6000 loops=1)
   Filter: (hint = '2500'::text)
   -  Index Scan using tree_hash_idx on tree  (cost=0.00..5.65 rows=2
width=39) (actual time=0.014..0.016 rows=2 loops=5999)
 Index Cond: (tree.hash = prof.hash)
 Total runtime: 7132.700 ms
(7 rows)

To exercise the problem (assuming a database named test):
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2500') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2501') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2502') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2503') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2504') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2505') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2506') test 

One of the update begins executing immediately, while the others block
waiting on the first (which is expected). The first update finished in under
10 seconds, and another one started executing; however, this second one has
now been executing for 2 hours.

strace output from that backend is almost exclusively reads, with only a few
calls to lseek.  Attaching with gdb and interrupting a few times mostly gave
this backtrace:

#0  0x003b812d3490 in __read_nocancel () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x005cd0cd in FileRead ()
#2  0x005dc55d in mdread ()
#3  0x005ca315 in ReadBuffer_common ()
#4  0x005cac7f in ReadBufferExtended ()
#5  0x00460c8b in heapgetpage ()
#6  0x0046110a in heapgettup_pagemode ()
#7  0x00461b56 in heap_getnext ()
#8  0x0054ef18 in SeqNext ()
#9  0x005429ba in ExecScan ()
#10 0x0053b8a8 in ExecProcNode ()
#11 0x00547ac8 in ExecAgg ()
#12 0x0053b7b8 in ExecProcNode ()
#13 0x0054e031 in ExecNestLoop ()
#14 0x0053b818 in ExecProcNode ()
#15 0x0053827e in EvalPlanQualNext ()
#16 0x0053867b in EvalPlanQual ()
#17 0x00539afd in standard_ExecutorRun ()
#18 0x7f796347881b in pgss_ExecutorRun (queryDesc=0x1af53b0,
direction=ForwardScanDirection, count=0) at pg_stat_statements.c:516
#19 0x005e3ad1 in ProcessQuery ()
#20 0x005e3cd4 in PortalRunMulti ()
#21 0x005e4452 in PortalRun ()
#22 0x005dfac9 in exec_simple_query ()
#23 0x005e10f3 in PostgresMain ()
#24 0x005b4e73 in ServerLoop ()
#25 0x005b729e in PostmasterMain ()
#26 0x00562578 in main ()



-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #8163: simultaneous nearly identical update queries execute extremely slowly

2013-05-15 Thread Todd A. Cook

On 05/15/13 13:27, tc...@blackducksoftware.com wrote:

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:  8163
Logged by:  Todd Cook
Email address:  tc...@blackducksoftware.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.16
Operating system:   Fedora 14
Description:

When nearly identical update queries arrive simultaneously, the first one to
execute runs normally, but subsequent executions run _extremely_ slowly.
We've seen this behaviour in production, and the contrived test case below
reproduces the issue.


I've repeated the test below on a 9.1.9 installation, and it works fine there.
Each update finished in about 7 seconds.

-- todd



test= select version() ;
   version


  PostgreSQL 8.4.16 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
4.4.4 20100726 (Red Hat 4.4.4-13), 64-bit


To set up:

create table prof as select i as id, i::text col1, (i*2)::text col2 ,
(i*3)::text col3, i*2 col4, md5((i % 5999)::text) as hash, (i % 6000)::text
as hint, (i*4)::text col6, i*5 col7, i*6 col8 from
generate_series(1,3600) i ;
create table tree as select 'fixed16charstrng'::text as changeme, md5((i %
20)::text) as hash from generate_series(1,40) i ;
create index tree_hash_idx on tree(hash) ;

The problematic query run in isolation:

explain analyze update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select
hash from prof where hint = '2500') ;
   QUERY PLAN

--
  Nested Loop  (cost=198.75..1000104.44 rows=11583 width=39) (actual
time=6765.316..6871.167 rows=11998 loops=1)
-  HashAggregate  (cost=198.75..198.76 rows=1 width=33) (actual
time=6765.264..6768.259 rows=5999 loops=1)
  -  Seq Scan on prof  (cost=0.00..184.15 rows=5840 width=33)
(actual time=1.351..6755.691 rows=6000 loops=1)
Filter: (hint = '2500'::text)
-  Index Scan using tree_hash_idx on tree  (cost=0.00..5.65 rows=2
width=39) (actual time=0.014..0.016 rows=2 loops=5999)
  Index Cond: (tree.hash = prof.hash)
  Total runtime: 7132.700 ms
(7 rows)

To exercise the problem (assuming a database named test):
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2500') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2501') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2502') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2503') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2504') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2505') test 
psql -c update tree set changeme = 'changed' where hash in (select hash
from prof where hint = '2506') test 

One of the update begins executing immediately, while the others block
waiting on the first (which is expected). The first update finished in under
10 seconds, and another one started executing; however, this second one has
now been executing for 2 hours.

strace output from that backend is almost exclusively reads, with only a few
calls to lseek.  Attaching with gdb and interrupting a few times mostly gave
this backtrace:

#0  0x003b812d3490 in __read_nocancel () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x005cd0cd in FileRead ()
#2  0x005dc55d in mdread ()
#3  0x005ca315 in ReadBuffer_common ()
#4  0x005cac7f in ReadBufferExtended ()
#5  0x00460c8b in heapgetpage ()
#6  0x0046110a in heapgettup_pagemode ()
#7  0x00461b56 in heap_getnext ()
#8  0x0054ef18 in SeqNext ()
#9  0x005429ba in ExecScan ()
#10 0x0053b8a8 in ExecProcNode ()
#11 0x00547ac8 in ExecAgg ()
#12 0x0053b7b8 in ExecProcNode ()
#13 0x0054e031 in ExecNestLoop ()
#14 0x0053b818 in ExecProcNode ()
#15 0x0053827e in EvalPlanQualNext ()
#16 0x0053867b in EvalPlanQual ()
#17 0x00539afd in standard_ExecutorRun ()
#18 0x7f796347881b in pgss_ExecutorRun (queryDesc=0x1af53b0,
direction=ForwardScanDirection, count=0) at pg_stat_statements.c:516
#19 0x005e3ad1 in ProcessQuery ()
#20 0x005e3cd4 in PortalRunMulti ()
#21 0x005e4452 in PortalRun ()
#22 0x005dfac9 in exec_simple_query ()
#23 0x005e10f3 in PostgresMain ()
#24 0x005b4e73 in ServerLoop ()
#25 0x005b729e in PostmasterMain ()
#26 0x00562578 in main ()







--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [BUGS] BUG #8163: simultaneous nearly identical update queries execute extremely slowly

2013-05-15 Thread Tom Lane
Todd A. Cook tc...@blackducksoftware.com writes:
 On 05/15/13 13:27, tc...@blackducksoftware.com wrote:
 When nearly identical update queries arrive simultaneously, the first one to
 execute runs normally, but subsequent executions run _extremely_ slowly.
 We've seen this behaviour in production, and the contrived test case below
 reproduces the issue.

 I've repeated the test below on a 9.1.9 installation, and it works fine there.

Given the reference to EvalPlanQual in your stack trace, I'm thinking
the explanation is this 9.0 fix:

Author: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Branch: master Release: REL9_0_BR [9f2ee8f28] 2009-10-26 02:26:45 +

Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and 
eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases.  We now identify the
current row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries.  If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to 
emit
only that one row.  The former behavior could rescan the whole of each 
joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's 
much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.

Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the 
recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown 
for
every row to be tested.  To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param.  Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.

This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE.  This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem.  It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #8163: simultaneous nearly identical update queries execute extremely slowly

2013-05-15 Thread Todd A. Cook

On 05/15/13 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:

Todd A. Cook tc...@blackducksoftware.com writes:

On 05/15/13 13:27, tc...@blackducksoftware.com wrote:

When nearly identical update queries arrive simultaneously, the first one to
execute runs normally, but subsequent executions run _extremely_ slowly.
We've seen this behaviour in production, and the contrived test case below
reproduces the issue.



I've repeated the test below on a 9.1.9 installation, and it works fine there.


Given the reference to EvalPlanQual in your stack trace, I'm thinking
the explanation is this 9.0 fix:


Thanks for the explanation.  Is there any chance of that fix being backpatched
into 8.4?

-- todd



Author: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Branch: master Release: REL9_0_BR [9f2ee8f28] 2009-10-26 02:26:45 +

 Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and 
eliminate
 a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases.  We now identify 
the
 current row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
 UPDATE/SHARE queries.  If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
 appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to 
emit
 only that one row.  The former behavior could rescan the whole of each 
joined
 relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's 
much
 worse could result in duplicated output tuples.

 Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the 
recheck
 execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown 
for
 every row to be tested.  To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
 runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
 make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param.  Thus, by
 signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
 already-built test plan.

 This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
 targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE.  This is needed to avoid the
 duplicate-output-tuple problem.  It seems fairly reasonable since the
 other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
 is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
 which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.

regards, tom lane






--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #8163: simultaneous nearly identical update queries execute extremely slowly

2013-05-15 Thread Tom Lane
Todd A. Cook tc...@blackducksoftware.com writes:
 On 05/15/13 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
 Given the reference to EvalPlanQual in your stack trace, I'm thinking
 the explanation is this 9.0 fix:

 Thanks for the explanation.  Is there any chance of that fix being backpatched
 into 8.4?

None whatsoever.  Aside from the mentioned change in semantics, there
were numerous followup fixes, which would be difficult to disentangle
from everything else that changed in 9.0.  We would not risk
destabilizing 8.4 like that.

8.4 is barely more a year from EOL anyway, so you really ought to be
thinking about an upgrade.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs