Re: Consecutive Query Executions with Increasing Execution Time - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Shijia Wei
Subject Re: Consecutive Query Executions with Increasing Execution Time
Date
Msg-id CABSfb-5G3GDgH5zYEg5mW1WNC-ncV1+420=BriKTtpL9a9SxpA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Consecutive Query Executions with Increasing Execution Time  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Hi everyone!

Thanks a ton for this brilliant discussion here!
It turned out that Nicolas was correct! I found that the CPU was broken and not spinning at all.
With consecutive parallel query execution, the CPU temperature hits 100C almost immediately after 1 or 2 iterations.
So the processor starts throttling way below baseline clk frequency to something like 1.2G or even 1G.

I waited until the new Fan came to report back, and now this weird behavior went away.

Thanks,
Shijia

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 11:11 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> If it is doing a seq scan (I don't know if it is) they intentionally use a
>> small ring buffer to, so they evict their own recently used blocks, rather
>> than evicting other people's blocks.  So these blocks won't build up in
>> shared_buffers very rapidly just on the basis of repeated seq scans.

> Sure, but according to the execution plans it is doing a Parallel Index Only Scan.

Nonetheless, the presented test case consists of repeatedly doing
the same query, in a fresh session each time.  If there's not other
activity then this should reach some sort of steady state.  The
table is apparently fairly large, so I don't find it surprising
that the steady state fails to be 100% cached.

                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Osahon Oduware
Date:
Subject: Re: How to prevent POSTGRES killing linux system from accepting toomuch inserts?
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: How to set parallel_tuple_cost