On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:35:31 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Interesting. 7.4.1 is worse for this test, as two jump up to 130k. But, my
> > app runs fine against 7.4.1...
>
> > Would it still be helpful to try and pull together a test c
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a Perl script, a Perl module and a 1Mb database (from pg_dump
> -F c). Are you interested at this time in receiving this?
Sure. Please send it off-list, of course.
> An upgrade to RC2 might occur when RC2 comes out, unless there would
> be gre
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>
>> How do other databases deal with this? I can't imagine we are the only
>> ones. Are we doing something different than them?
>
> I'm not sure the people qualified to answer that are able to do so. What
> do other OSS projects do about this is more lik
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Certainly there is a lack of ideas as to how to fix it, as you mention
> > in (3). This shows to me that the solution lies in one of two areas: a)
> > the solution has not yet been considered or b) the
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 13:08 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Try getting lucky in google with "spinlock contention is greater"
Kevin's reference is actually to a Sybase manual page; very interesting.
This refers to the idea of subdividing the lock into may partitions.
That's already been discussed,
Try getting lucky in google with "spinlock contention is greater"
>>> Bruce Momjian >>>
How do other databases deal with this? I can't imagine we are the only
ones. Are we doing something different than them?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Certainly there is a lack of ideas as to how to fix it, as you mention
> > in (3). This shows to me that the solution lies in one of two areas: a)
> > the solution has not yet been considered or b) the solution has already
> > been thoug
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Certainly there is a lack of ideas as to how to fix it, as you mention
> in (3). This shows to me that the solution lies in one of two areas: a)
> the solution has not yet been considered or b) the solution has already
> been thought of and for whatever rea
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It would be good right now to have a multi-process test harness that
> > would allow us to test out different spin lock code without the rest of
> > PostgreSQL getting in the way of testing. If we can i
Remember the suggestion I made that PostgreSQL add the capability
to define named caches and bind specific objects to those caches?
One of the reasons Sybase recommends using such named caches
(per their performance tuning documentation) is to reduce spinlock
contention.
I don't know whether Postg
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be good right now to have a multi-process test harness that
> would allow us to test out different spin lock code without the rest of
> PostgreSQL getting in the way of testing. If we can isolate the issue
> outside of PostgreSQL it will be much ea
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:54 -0600, Robert Creager wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:28:21 +0100
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the CS is the same, then it will tell us that the issue is not data
> > dependent. If the CS drops, it tells us that it is an activity performed
> > on t
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:28:21 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 14:59 -0600, Robert Creager wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:19:18 +0100
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Try this to recreate the problem:
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/p
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 14:59 -0600, Robert Creager wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:19:18 +0100
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Try this to recreate the problem:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-04/msg00280.php
> >
>
> Yup, that does it. Three hits the leve
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting. 7.4.1 is worse for this test, as two jump up to 130k. But, my
> app
> runs fine against 7.4.1...
> Would it still be helpful to try and pull together a test case from my app
> against 8.1beta3?
Yes, if you can show a case where 8.1 is m
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:19:18 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try this to recreate the problem:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-04/msg00280.php
>
Yup, that does it. Three hits the level I see with my application ~100k. Two
hits about 50k, one does nothing
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 12:24 -0600, Robert Creager wrote:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please try this patch and see if it reduces the CS storm:
> Sorry, didn't work. Took about an hour, and now it's now at the CS storm
> (averaging 9
Robert,
> Anyone know of a script that can replay a PostgreSQL log file? Then I
> could log all queries, wait till the problem hits, and then replay to
> see if that reproduces it...
log_statement=true in your postgresql.conf file. The trick is weeding out
all the other non-query stuff.
--
-
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:24:03 -0600
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:29:43 -0600
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:25:25 +0100
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please try this patch and see if it reduce
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:29:43 -0600
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:25:25 +0100
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Please try this patch and see if it reduces the CS storm:
> >
Sorry, didn't work. Took about an hour, and now it's now at the CS st
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:25:25 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please try this patch and see if it reduces the CS storm:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-10/msg00091.php
Yes, I will. I'd been trying to figure out what triggered it, as I was unable
to reproduc
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 21:20 -0600, Robert Creager wrote:
> When grilled further on (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:44:54 -0400),
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed:
>
> > Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I've been having this problem since trying to upgrade from 7.4.1 to 8.03,
> and
> >
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there anything I might be able to do (without the test case) that
> would help figure out what's happening?
oprofile stats would be enlightening, perhaps.
I'm particularly interested in why 7.4 is behaving better than newer
versions --- that does no
When grilled further on (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:44:54 -0400),
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed:
> Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've been having this problem since trying to upgrade from 7.4.1 to 8.03,
and
> > now 8.1.
>
> Can you put together a test case that other people cou
Robert Creager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been having this problem since trying to upgrade from 7.4.1 to 8.03, and
> now 8.1.
Can you put together a test case that other people could use to
reproduce it?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadca
I've been having this problem since trying to upgrade from 7.4.1 to 8.03, and
now 8.1.
It's a dual Xenon machine:
Linux annette.stortek.com 2.4.22-26mdkenterprise #1 SMP Wed Jan 7 07:10:39 MST
2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux
PostgreSQL version is:
26 matches
Mail list logo
