Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks.
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1z03uq-GHQ+Dgv7ksEVyTA6QzAbSkxVmj3GK-WGK2W=gw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks.  (Gunther <raj@gusw.net>)
Ответы Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks.
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks.
Список pgsql-performance
Дерево обсуждения
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:02 PM Gunther <raj@gusw.net> wrote:

Thank you all for responding so far.

David Rowley  and Justin Pryzby suggested things about autovacuum. But I don't think autovacuum has any helpful role here. I am explicitly doing a vacuum on that table. And it doesn't help at all. Almost not at all.

If you do a vacuum verbose, what stats do you get back?  What is the size of the index when the degradation starts to show, and immediately after a successful reindex?

Also, how is JobID assigned?  Are they from a sequence, or some other method where they are always added to the end of the index's keyspace?

When it starts to degrade, what is the EXPLAIN plan for the query?

Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeff Janes
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, but REINDEX fails with deadlocks.
Следующее
От: Gunther Schadow
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks.