-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Janes
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Jon Nelson
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 8.4, COPY, and high concurrency
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>> While the WAL is suppressed for the table inserts, it is not
>> suppressed for the index inserts, and the index WAL traffic is enough
>> to lead to contention.
>
> Aha!
>
>> I don't know
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
>>
>> UPDATE: I have been able to replicate the issue. The parent table (the
>> one referenced in the LIKE portion of the CREATE TABLE statement) had
>> three indices.
>>
>> Now that I've been
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
>
> UPDATE: I have been able to replicate the issue. The parent table (the
> one referenced in the LIKE portion of the CREATE TABLE statement) had
> three indices.
>
> Now that I've been able to replicate the issue, are there tests that I
> can pe
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> I had moved on to a different approach to importing the data which
> does not work concurrently. However, I went back and tried to
> re-create the situation and - at least a naive attempt failed. I'll
> give it a few more tries -- I was creating
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Jon Nelson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13.11.2012 21:13, Jon Nelson wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd guess it's lock contention on WALInsertLock. That means, th
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>>
>> On 13.11.2012 21:13, Jon Nelson wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I'd guess it's lock contention on WALInsertLock. That means, the system is
>> experiencing lock contention on generating WAL re
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 13.11.2012 21:13, Jon Nelson wrote:
>
>> I was working on a data warehousing project where a fair number of files
>> could be COPY'd more or less directly into tables. I have a somewhat nice
>> machine to work with, and I ran on 75%
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> I was working on a data warehousing project where a fair number of files
> could be COPY'd more or less directly into tables. I have a somewhat nice
> machine to work with, and I ran on 75% of the cores I have (75% of 32 is
> 24).
>
> Performan
On 13.11.2012 21:13, Jon Nelson wrote:
I was working on a data warehousing project where a fair number of files
could be COPY'd more or less directly into tables. I have a somewhat nice
machine to work with, and I ran on 75% of the cores I have (75% of 32 is
24).
Performance was pretty bad. With
I was working on a data warehousing project where a fair number of files
could be COPY'd more or less directly into tables. I have a somewhat nice
machine to work with, and I ran on 75% of the cores I have (75% of 32 is
24).
Performance was pretty bad. With 24 processes going, each backend (in COP
11 matches
Mail list logo
