From: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:29:01 +0900
Message-ID: <47D51B7D.4010800@postnewspapers.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47D5150C.8090802@enterprisedb.com>
References: <47D505AF.4040101@postnewspapers.com.au>
<47D5150C.8090802@enterprisedb.com>
Thanks for the extremely helpful response. I don't think I would've
spotted that one in a hurry.
> You must be having an exception handler block in that pl/pgsql
> function, which implicitly creates a new subtransaction on each
> invocation of the exception handler block, so you end up with hundreds
> of thousands of committed subtransactions.
Aah - yes, there is. I didn't realize it'd have such an impact. I can
work around the need for it by explicitly checking the table constraints
in the function - in which case an uncaught exception will terminate the
transaction, but should only arise when I've missed a constraint check.
> For 8.4, it would be nice to improve that. I tested that on my laptop
> with a similarly-sized table, inserting each row in a pl/pgsql
> function with an exception handler, and I got very similar run times.
> According to oprofile, all the time is spent in
> TransactionIdIsInProgress. I think it would be pretty straightforward
> to store the committed subtransaction ids in a sorted array, instead
> of a linked list, and binary search. Or to use a hash table. That
> should eliminate this problem, though there is still other places as
> well where a large number of subtransactions will hurt performance.
That does sound interesting - and it would be nice to be able to use
exception handlers this way without too huge a performance hit. In the
end though it's something that can be designed around once you're aware
of it - and I'm sure that other ways of storing that data have their own
different costs and downsides.
What might also be nice, and simpler, would be a `notice', `log', or
even `debug1' level warning telling the user they've reached an absurd
number of subtransactions that'll cripple PostgreSQL's performance - say
100,000. There's precedent for this in the checkpoint frequency warning
8.3 produces if checkpoints are becoming too frequent - and like that
warning it could be configurable for big sites. If you think that's sane
I might have a go at it - though I mostly work in C++ so the result
probably won't be too pretty initially.
--
Craig Ringer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: craig@postnewspapers.com.au
Subject: Re: Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
In-Reply-To: <47D51B7D.4010800@postnewspapers.com.au>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox