c2c-oerpscenario team mailing list archive

[xrg <xrg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 31 January 2011, you wrote:
> Olivier,
> 
> I'll look at that perf to see if I can do something. Already, I can tell
> you that there isn't any very very slow queries. Instead, it looks, the
> 20 minutes to process our 315 items pickings is made out of a lot of lot
> of small ~150 ms queries + Python processing (although as I said, a top
> shows that Potgres is eating 70% of the CPU, Python 30%).
> 
> I should still analyse the log, but that's of any help, I'm attaching a
> log of the SQL requests longer than 100 ms during this process.
> 
> ** Attachment added: "postgresql-2011-01-29_230423.log"

Please, can you try the attached patch?
It seems to improve things for /one/ case so far.


** Patch added: "0001-stock-improve-speed-for-action_done-with-many-moves-.patch"
   https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709575/+attachment/1865267/+files/0001-stock-improve-speed-for-action_done-with-many-moves-.patch

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of C2C
OERPScenario, which is subscribed to the OpenERP Project Group.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709575

Title:
  [6.0.1][stock] very very slow (22 minutes!!!) to process a large
  picking

Status in OpenERP Modules (addons):
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  Hey guys,

  <content randomly removed due to foul language, please respect the Etiquette!> full description + screenshot here (new bug because different concern):
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/openobject-addons/+bug/709559

  During that time, my server CPU usage shows roughly:
    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
  32290 postgres  20   0 54388  38m  32m R   71  1.2   1:47.89 postgres
  32284 akretion  20   0  186m 113m  23m S   21  3.5   0:49.00 python

  So an SQL log analyzer will help us to find if there is some slow
  query. Fortunately here the case is almost daily, so we will be able
  to log the queries. But if you have an idea, be my guest, cause this
  would impact large companies very badly.

  BTW, this is our hardware, the rest of the perf is pretty good:

  root@audiolivroserver:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
  processor	: 0
  vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
  cpu family	: 6
  model		: 23
  model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7500  @ 2.93GHz
  stepping	: 10
  cpu MHz		: 1603.000
  cache size	: 3072 KB
  physical id	: 0
  siblings	: 2
  core id		: 0
  cpu cores	: 2
  apicid		: 0
  initial apicid	: 0
  fdiv_bug	: no
  hlt_bug		: no
  f00f_bug	: no
  coma_bug	: no
  fpu		: yes
  fpu_exception	: yes
  cpuid level	: 13
  wp		: yes
  flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
  bogomips	: 5852.43
  clflush size	: 64
  cache_alignment	: 64
  address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
  power management:

  processor	: 1
  vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
  cpu family	: 6
  model		: 23
  model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7500  @ 2.93GHz
  stepping	: 10
  cpu MHz		: 1603.000
  cache size	: 3072 KB
  physical id	: 0
  siblings	: 2
  core id		: 1
  cpu cores	: 2
  apicid		: 1
  initial apicid	: 1
  fdiv_bug	: no
  hlt_bug		: no
  f00f_bug	: no
  coma_bug	: no
  fpu		: yes
  fpu_exception	: yes
  cpuid level	: 13
  wp		: yes
  flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
  bogomips	: 5851.96
  clflush size	: 64
  cache_alignment	: 64
  address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
  power management: