Will follow standard practice going forward. We are in the process of rebuilding the PST environment equivalent to Prod where these Load tests were done. I will implement all these suggestions on that environment and reply back. Sincere apologies for the delay.
Regards,
Aditya.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 9:50 PM Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com> wrote:
Reply to the group, not just me please. Btw, when you do reply to the group, it is best practice on these lists to reply in-line and not just reply on top with all prior messages quoted.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 3:23 AM aditya desai <admad123@gmail.com> wrote:
I tried vacuum full and execution time came down to half.
Great to hear.
However, it still consumes CPU. Setting parallel workers per gather to 0 did not help much.
You didn't answer all of my questions, particularly about disabling sequential scan. If you still have the default random_page_cost of 4, it might be that 1.5 allows better estimates for cost on index (random) vs sequential scan of a table.
Laurenz is a brilliant guy. I would implement the indexes he suggests if you don't have them already and report back. If the indexes don't get used, try set enable_seqscan = false; before the query and if it is way faster, then reduce random_page_cost to maybe 1-2 depending how your overall cache hit ratio is across the system.
Auto vacuuming is catching up just fine. No issues in that area.
If the time came down by half after 'vacuum full', I would question that statement.
Temp table size is less that original tables without indexes.
Significantly less would indicate the regular table still being bloated I think. Maybe someone else will suggest otherwise.
Does this mean we need to upgrade the hardware? Also by caching data , do you mean caching at application side(microservices side) ? Or on postgres side? I tried pg_prewarm, it did not help much.
I can't say about hardware. Until you have exhausted options like configs and indexing, spending more money forever onwards seems premature. I meant pre-aggregated data, wherever it makes sense to do that. I wouldn't expect pg_prewarm to do a ton since you already show high cache hits.
It is actually the CPU consumption which is the issue. Query is fast otherwise.
Sure, but that is a symptom of reading and processing a lot of data.
