Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
Date
Msg-id 20130910010420.GA32160@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, Sep  9, 2013 at 08:38:09PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2013 03:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> >>Amit, All:
> >>
> >>So we just retested this on 9.3b2.  The performance is the same as 9.1
> >>and 9.2; that is, progressively worse as the test cycles go on, and
> >>unacceptably slow compared to 8.4.
> >>
> >>Some issue introduced in 9.1 is causing BINDs to get progressively
> >>slower as the PARSEs BINDs get run repeatedly.  Per earlier on this
> >>thread, that can bloat to 200X time required for a BIND, and it's
> >>definitely PostgreSQL-side.
> >>
> >>I'm trying to produce a test case which doesn't involve the user's
> >>application.  However, hints on other things to analyze would be keen.
> >Does it seem to be all CPU time (it is hard to imagine what else it
> >would be, but...)
> >
> >Could you use oprofile or perf or gprof to get a profile of the
> >backend during a run?  That should quickly narrow it down to which C
> >function has the problem.
> >
> >Did you test 9.0 as well?
>
>
> This has been tested back to 9.0. What we have found is that the
> problem disappears if the database has come in via dump/restore, but
> is present if it is the result of pg_upgrade. There are some
> long-running transactions also running alongside this - we are
> currently planning a test where those are not present. We're also
> looking at constructing a self-contained test case.
>
> Here is some perf output from the bad case:
>
>    +  14.67%  postgres           [.] heap_hot_search_buffer

OK, certainly looks like a HOT chain issue.  I think there are two
possibilities:

1)  the heap or index file is different from a dump/restore vs.
    pg_upgrade
2)  some other files is missing or changed between the two

My guess is that the dump/restore removes all the HOT chains as it just
dumps the most recent value of the chain.  Could it be HOT chain
overhead that you are seeing, rather than a pg_upgrade issue/bug?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
Next
From: Mel Llaguno
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?