On Thu, 24 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Sergey Koposov <kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
I guess there is nothing catastrophically wrong with that, but still I'm
very suprised that you get severe locking problems (factor of two slow-down)
when running parallel read-only transactions.
Me, too. How many concurrent connections are you running, and does
your working set exceed shared_buffers? Can you provide a
self-contained reproducible test case?
The last tests I've been doing were with 8 connections.
And the working set is roughly 30Gig, which is ~ 3x the shared buffers.
(but ~ 50% of RAM).
Regarding the test-case, I'll try to see whether I can still observe the
same slowing down if I chop the main table by a factor of few, so I can
put the data somewhere for download.
S
*****************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov, PhD, Research Associate
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge
Madingley road, CB3 0HA, Cambridge, UK
Tel: +44-1223-337-551 Web: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~koposov/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
