On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> The attached patch addresses one of the open non-blockers for beta3.
>
> These are tuning points which emerged in testing. The first is more
> likely to be helpful. The second may be very important in a few
> types of transaction mixes, but I threw in a lot of weasel words and
> qualifiers because someone could easily try this to bring down the
> transaction retry rate, but suffer a net loss in throughput because
> less efficient plans could be chosen. I hope I made that point in a
> reasonable fashion, although I'm certainly open to suggestions for
> better wording.
This is good advice, but I think it could use a bit more wordsmithing.How about something like this:
When the system is forced to combine multiple page-level predicate
locks into a single relation-level predicate lock because the
predicate lock table is short of memory, an increase in the rate of
serialization failures may occur. You can avoid this by increasing
max_pred_locks_per_transaction.
A sequential scan will always necessitate a table-level predicate
lock. This can result in an increased rate of serialization failures.It may be helpful to encourage the use of index
scansby reducing
random_page_cost or increasing cpu_tuple_cost. Be sure to <etc.>
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
