| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI tuning points |
| Date: | 2011-06-19 15:10:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4DFDCB31020000250003E8BF@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I'm certainly open to suggestions for better wording.
> 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 scans by reducing
> random_page_cost or increasing cpu_tuple_cost. Be sure to
That does seem better. Thanks.
-Kevin
| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SSI tuning points |
| Date: | 2011-06-22 01:54:49 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTik6E0EmoCbZ1tm7OnAT4c88Oi389A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> That does seem better. Thanks.
OK, committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company