On Monday, February 3, 2014, Pweaver (Paul Weaver) <pweaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We have been running into a (live lock?) issue on our production Postgres instance causing queries referencing a particular table to become extremely slow and our application to lock up.
This tends to occur on a particular table that gets a lot of queries against it after a large number of deletes. When this happens, the following symptoms occur when queries referencing that table are run (even it we stop the deleting):
What do you mean by "stop the deleting"? Are you pausing the delete but without either committing or rolling back the transaction, but just holding it open? Are you stopping it cleanly, between transactions?
Also, how many queries are happening concurrently? Perhaps you need a connection pooler.
Is the CPU time user time or system time? What kernel version do you have?
SELECT * FROM table_name LIMIT 10; -- takes ~45 seconds to completeEXPLAIN SELECT * FROM table_name LIMIT 10; -- takes ~45 seconds to complete the explain query, the query plan looks reasonable
This sounds like the problem we heard quite a bit about recently, where processes spend a lot of time fighting over the proclock while they try to check the commit status of open transactions while. But I don't see how deletes could trigger that behavior. If the delete has not committed, the tuples are still visible and the LIMIT 10 is quickly satisfied. If the delete has committed, the tuples quickly get hinted, and so the next query along should be faster.
I also don't see why the explain would be slow. A similar problem was tracked down to digging through in-doubt tuples while trying to use an index to find the true the min or max during estimating the cost of a merge join. But I don't think a simple table query should lead to that, unless table_name is a view. And I don't see how deletes, rather than uncommitted inserts, could trigger it either.
max_connections | 600 | configuration file
That is quite extreme. If a temporary load spike (like from the deletes and the hinting needed after them) slows down the select queries and you start more and more of them, soon you could tip the system over into kernel scheduler insanity with high system time. Once in this mode, it will stay there until the incoming stream of queries stops and the existing ones clear out. But, if that is what is occurring, I don't know why queries on other tables would still be fast.
Cheers,
Jeff
