Re: Update using primary key slow
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Update using primary key slow |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23322.1130442063@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Update using primary key slow (Denis <denis.sailer@yellowbook.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reasons and drawbacks for unused item pointers (was: Update using primary key slow)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Denis <denis.sailer@yellowbook.com> writes: > tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) wrote in > news:19722.1130429883@sss.pgh.pa.us: >> The 183 msec is the time needed to *fetch* the row, not the time to >> update it. So it could well be that the other time is just the time >> needed to update the table and indexes. If this seems slower than >> your hardware ought to be able to handle, I'd wonder about how >> recently the table has been vacuumed. > Here is the latest vacuum today. > INFO: "contract": removed 64146 row versions in 26115 pages > DETAIL: CPU 1.94s/2.55u sec elapsed 7.78 sec. > INFO: "contract": found 64146 removable, 5106307 nonremovable row > versions in 129154 pages > DETAIL: 890 dead row versions cannot be removed yet. > There were 1905028 unused item pointers. The "unused item pointers" number seems a bit high, but otherwise that looks pretty reasonable. Is it possible that the particular row you were updating has been updated quite a lot of times since the last vacuum? Or even quite a few times within a single transaction? The only thing I can think of that would explain such a slow fetch is if the code has to reject a bunch of recently-dead versions of the row. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: