Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YTx6g-0006yV-0V for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:36:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YTx6e-0003uO-Vc for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:36:17 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YTx6Z-0003kh-V0 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:36:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YTx6V-0006tS-M0 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:36:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t26Ia1Wn000996; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:36:01 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Tomas Vondra cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Gunnlaugur Thor Briem Subject: Re: EXPLAIN (no ANALYZE) taking an hour for INSERT FROM SELECT In-reply-to: <54F9E179.4000804@2ndquadrant.com> References: <54F8F2BB.2010402@2ndquadrant.com> <6068.1425602694@sss.pgh.pa.us> <54F9E179.4000804@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Tomas Vondra message dated "Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:18:49 +0100" Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:36:01 -0500 Message-ID: <995.1425666961@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Tomas Vondra writes: > On 6.3.2015 01:44, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm wondering about the issue addressed by commit fccebe421 ("Use >> SnapshotDirty rather than an active snapshot to probe index >> endpoints"). > How would fccebe421 explain the large amount of random writes (~4MB/s > for more than an hour), reported in the initial post? And why would that > only affect the EXPLAIN and not the bare query? Hard to say. There's probably additional factors involved, and this may ultimately turn out to be unrelated. But it seemed like it might be an issue, particularly since the plan had a mergejoin with lots of clauses ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance