|
Thank you all for responding so far. David Rowley and Justin Pryzby suggested things about
autovacuum. But I don't think autovacuum has any helpful role
here. I am explicitly doing a vacuum on that table. And it doesn't
help at all. Almost not at all. I want to believe that VACUUM FREEZE Queue; will push the database CPU% down again once it is climbing up,
and I can do this may be 3 to 4 times, but ultimately I will
always have to rebuild the index. But also, none of these vaccuum
operations I do takes very long at all. It is just not efficacious
at all. Rebuilding the index by building a new index and removing the
old, then rename, and vacuum again, is prone to get stuck. I tried to do it in a transaction. But it says CREATE INDEX can't
be done in a transaction. Need to CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... and I can't even do that in a procedure. If I do it manually by issuing first CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY new and then DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY old, it might work once, but usually it just gets stuck with two indexes. Although I noticed that it would actually put CPU back down and improve transaction throughput. I also noticed that after I quit from DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY old, that index is shown as INVALID \d Queue ... Indexes: "queue_idx_pending" UNIQUE, btree (jobId, action) WHERE pending INVALID "queue_idx_pending2" UNIQUE, btree (jobId, action) WHERE pending INVALID "queue_idx_pending3" UNIQUE, btree (jobId, action) WHERE pending INVALID "queue_idx_pending4" UNIQUE, btree (jobId, action) WHERE pending INVALID "queue_idx_pending5" UNIQUE, btree (jobId, action) WHERE pending INVALID "queue_idx_pending6" UNIQUE, btree (jobId, action) WHERE pending ... and so I keep doing that same routine hands-on, every time that the CPU% creeps above 50% I do CREATE UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY Queue_idx_pending6 ON Queue(jobId, action) WHERE currentlyOpen; DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY Queue_idx_pending5; at which place it hangs, I interrupt the DROP command, which leaves the old index behind as "INVALID". VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE Queue; At this point the db's CPU% dropping below 20% after the new index has been built. Unfortunately this is totally hands on approach I have to do this
every 5 minutes or so. And possibly the time between these
necessities decreases. It also leads to inefficiency over time,
even despite the CPU seemingly recovering. So this isn't sustainable like that (worse because my Internet constantly drops). What I am most puzzled by is that no matter how long I wait, the DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY never completes. Why is that? Also, the REINDEX command always fails with a deadlock because
there is a row lock and a complete table lock involved. I consider this ultimately a bug, or at the very least there is
room for improvement. And I am on version 11.1. -Gunther |
