Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobF7yfPFgke71Efadqgoz6dxwfv+GOLy+1MPEmkSyUVpQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks,
CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > I think what's happening here is that the buffer partitions don't help > (in fact, they hurt) in the presence of multiple concurrent scans that > are operating on approximately the same data. Sooner or later the > scans line up on each other and start binding when reassigning lock > tags (which take out up to two ordered exclusive lwlocks). This is on > the read side, so the buffer access strategy is zero help (I confirmed > this off list). This theory is seeming fairly plausible - how can we test it? How about trying it with synchronize_seqscans = off? If the synchronized-seqscan logic is causing contention on the buf mapping locks and individual buffer locks, that should fix it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: