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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
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
Ответ на
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. (Gunther)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, but REINDEX fails with deadlocks. Gunther <raj@gusw.net>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Gunther <raj@gusw.net>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Gunther <raj@gusw.net>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Gunther <raj@gusw.net>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Gunther Schadow <gunther@pragmaticdata.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, but REINDEX fails with deadlocks. Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, but REINDEX fails with deadlocks. Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Re: Massive parallel queue table causes index deterioration, butREINDEX fails with deadlocks. MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
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:
Следующее
От: Gunther Schadow
Дата:
FAQ