Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1100900912.3388.12.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 22:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > >> The main problem on INSERTs is that it is usually the same few pages: > >> the lead data block and the lead index block. There are ways of > >> spreading the load out across an index, but I'm not sure what happens on > >> the leading edge of the data relation, but I think it hits the same > >> block each time. > > > I actually have several test cases for this, can you give me a trace or > > profile suggestion that would show if this is happening? > > If it is a problem, the LockBuffer calls in RelationGetBufferForTuple > would be the places showing contention delays. You say this as if we can easily check that. My understanding is that this would require a scripted gdb session to instrument the executable at that point. Is that what you mean? That isn't typically regarded as a great thing to do on a production system. You've mentioned about performance speculation, which I agree with, but what are the alternatives? Compile-time changes aren't usually able to be enabled, since many people from work RPMs. > It could also be that the contention is for the WALInsertLock, ie, the > right to stuff a WAL record into the shared buffers. This effect would > be the same even if you were inserting into N separate tables. ...and how do we check that also. Are we back to simulated workloads and fully rigged executables? -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: