Re: Random penalties on GIN index updates?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Random penalties on GIN index updates? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070910212016t3073b73cw3318787f81e42ad7@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Random penalties on GIN index updates? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Random penalties on GIN index updates?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> writes: >> What I seems to miss a way to make sure som "background" application is >> the one getting the penalty, so a random user doing a single insert >> won't get stuck. Is that doable? > > You could force a vacuum every so often, but I don't think that will > help the locking situation. You really need to back off work_mem --- > 512MB is probably not a sane global value for that anyway. Yeah, it's hard to imagine a system where that doesn't threaten all kinds of other bad results. I bet setting this to 4MB will make this problem largely go away. Arguably we shouldn't be using work_mem to control this particular behavior, but... ...Robert
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: