Hi all We're experiencing a very strange performance issue. Our setup is a bit more complicated, but we've managed to isolate and replicate the core problem. Here's what we observe:
We took a strong machine (128 GB RAM, 8-core CPU, SSD drives...) and installed a fresh copy of PostgreSQL 9.2 (Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS, default configuration). Then, we created a test database with the following schema: CREATE TABLE offers ( id bigserial NOT NULL, name character varying NOT NULL, category_id bigint NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT offers_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id) ); CREATE TABLE categories ( id bigserial NOT NULL, name character varying NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT categories_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id) ); and populated it with in the following way: insert into categories (name) select 'category_' || x from generate_series(1,1000) as x; insert into offers (name, category_id) select 'offer_' || x, floor(random() * 1000) + 1 from generate_series(1,1000*1000) as x; Finally, we created a python script to make simple queries in a loop: while True: id = random.randrange(1, 1000 * 1000) db.execute('select offers.id, offers.name, categories.id, categories.name from offers left join categories on categories.id = offers.category_id where offers.id = %s', (id,)) print db.fetchall() We start 20 instances simultaneously and measure performance: parallel -j 20 ./test.py -- $(seq 1 20) | pv -i1 -l > /dev/null Normally we observe about 30k QPS what's a satisfying result (without any tuning at all). The problem occurs when we open a second console, start psql and type: pgtest=> begin; insert into categories (name) select 'category_' || x from generate_series(1,1000) as x; We start a transaction and insert 1k records to the 'categories' table. After that performance of the benchmark described above immediately drops to about 1-2k QPS. That's 20-30 times! After closing the transaction (committing or aborting - doesn't matter) it immediately jumps back to 30k QPS. Restarting the running script and other simple tricks do not change anything. The hanging, open transaction is causing a huge slowdown. What's more when doing similar insert (even much larger) to the 'offers' table we do not observe this effect. We analyzed the problem a bit deeper and find out that the actual query execution times are not affected that much. They are constantly close to 0.5 ms. This can be observed in a server log (after enabling appropriate option) and this can be found in 'explain analyze...' result. Also the query plan returned do not change and looks optimal (pkey scan for 'offers' + pkey scan for 'categories'). After a few random thought we've finally turned the 'log_planner_stats' option and found out that the planner executions times are highly affected by the hanging transaction. Here's the typical output in the initial situation: 2013-09-17 21:54:59 UTC LOG: PLANNER STATISTICS 2013-09-17 21:54:59 UTC DETAIL: ! system usage stats: ! 0.000137 elapsed 0.000000 user 0.000000 system sec ! [2.169670 user 0.383941 sys total] ! 0/0 [0/11520] filesystem blocks in/out ! 0/0 [0/7408] page faults/reclaims, 0 [0] swaps ! 0 [0] signals rcvd, 0/0 [0/0] messages rcvd/sent ! 0/0 [1362/7648] voluntary/involuntary context switches And here's a typical output with a hanging transaction: 2013-09-17 21:56:12 UTC LOG: PLANNER STATISTICS 2013-09-17 21:56:12 UTC DETAIL: ! system usage stats: ! 0.027251 elapsed 0.008999 user 0.001000 system sec ! [32.722025 user 3.550460 sys total] ! 0/0 [0/115128] filesystem blocks in/out ! 0/0 [0/7482] page faults/reclaims, 0 [0] swaps ! 0 [0] signals rcvd, 0/0 [0/0] messages rcvd/sent ! 1/6 [12817/80202] voluntary/involuntary context switches As you can see it takes over 100 times more time when the extra transaction is open! Any ideas why's that? It extremely affects total query time. I know that using prepared statements to solves the problem completely, so we can deal with it, but we've already spend a lot of time to go that far and I'm personally a bit curious what's the fundamental reason for such a behavior. I'll be very thankful for any explanation what's going on here! Thanks, BR