From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Cc: Gunnlaugur Thor Briem <gunnlaugur@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN (no ANALYZE) taking an hour for INSERT FROM SELECT
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:44:26 +0100
Message-ID: <54FB1CDA.1080606@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMkU=1zxAB4AQySxex_DXP2mt+Ab=S+nQw+2M1rY7CFJzgYfTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54F9E179.4000804@2ndquadrant.com>
<1407502480.21180.1425691482543.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
<27245.1425692294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAMkU=1zxAB4AQySxex_DXP2mt+Ab=S+nQw+2M1rY7CFJzgYfTQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 7.3.2015 03:26, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> But the actual query is using a seq scan, and so it would hint the
> table in efficient sequential order, rather than hinting the table
> haphazardly in index order like probing the endpoint does.
I think this has nothing to do with the plan itself, but with the
estimation in optimizer - that looks up the range from the index in some
cases, and that may generate random I/O to the table.
>
>> Also, it's less than clear why only this particular query is
>> showing any stress. Dead rows should be a hazard for anything,
>> especially if there are enough of them to require hours to re-hint.
>> And why wouldn't autovacuum get to them first?
>
>
> Say the timing of this query is such that 10% of the parent turns
> over between invocations of this query, and that this 10% is all at
> the end of some index but random over the table heap. If autovac
> kicks in at 20% turn over, then half the time autovac does get to
> them first, and half the time it doesn't. It would be interesting to
> know if this query is bad every time it is planner, or just
> sometimes.
Yeah, this might be the reason. Another possibility is that this is part
of some large batch, and autovacuum simply did not have change to do the
work.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kgrittn@ymail.com, gunnlaugur@gmail.com
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN (no ANALYZE) taking an hour for INSERT FROM SELECT
In-Reply-To: <54FB1CDA.1080606@2ndquadrant.com>
* 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