Re: postgres getting slow under heavy load though autivacuum is enabled - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bill Moran
Subject Re: postgres getting slow under heavy load though autivacuum is enabled
Date
Msg-id 20090609110410.2951b4b7.wmoran@potentialtech.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to postgres getting slow under heavy load though autivacuum is enabled  ("tamanna madaan" <tamanna.madan@globallogic.com>)
Responses Re: postgres getting slow under heavy load though autivacuum is enabled
List pgsql-general
In response to "tamanna madaan" <tamanna.madan@globallogic.com>:
>
> I am using postgres 8.1.2 with slony 1.1.5 used for replication between two nodes. Very high number of db operations
like(2.8 million inserts, 1.4 million update and 4.5 lakhs deletes.) are being done on db in one transaction and this
isrepeated for 5-6 times a day  at an interval of let say 2 hours. This process is runnning for 5 consective days. It
isobeserved that db is getting very slow with time. The number of dead tuples getting increased in pg_listener,
sl_log_1and sl_seqlog tables with time though I have autovacuum enabled and slony related tables like (sl_log_1 ,
sl_seqlogetc) are configured not to be processed by autovacuum . Please let me know what could be the reason of
increasingdead tuples in these tables and postgres getting slow.  

The slony docs state, and I quote:
"Long running transactions are Evil"
http://slony.info/documentation/slonyadmin.html#BESTPRACTICES

I'm going to guess that a single transaction with multi millions of
tuple changes is about as evil as it gets.

This is a known shortcoming of Slony.  You're going to need carefully
tuned vacuum, well designed schema, adequate hardware, and clever
schema design to keep a system like that healthy.  That is, if you can't
figure out a way to avoid the huge transactions.

Considering you mention nothing about your hardware, it's possible that
you simply don't have enough.  We do some huge transactions over Slony
(although not into the millions per transaction) but we have enough
free RAM, free disk space, and free CPU cycles to clean up after it so
it's not hurting us.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Brandon Metcalf
Date:
Subject: Re: limit table to one row
Next
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: column name gets substitudes inside an execute statement of a trigger function. how to avoid it?!