From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: A J <s5aly@yahoo.com>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Confused by 'timing' results
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:49:06 -0400
Message-ID: <25773.1283446146@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <529329.89885.qm@web120007.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <788866.21140.qm@web120020.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<4C7D00330200002500034ED2@gw.wicourts.gov>
<19320.56933.qm@web120013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<AANLkTi=6k6AbmBcqkVCKgNSiogVfQmP+iOC8FgA6+e5J@mail.gmail.com>
<529329.89885.qm@web120007.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
A J <s5aly@yahoo.com> writes:
> The problem I am now facing in using log_min_duration_statement is that all the
> clients have to write to a single log file in the pg_log directory. So they have
> to wait for the other writes to happen before completing their write. This seems
> to be reason why the measured duration in the log file (for several concurrent
> clients) is way more, infact much more than what was measured by psql timing
> from the client side.
Do you have any actual evidence for that being the problem, as opposed
to some other effect? Because I don't recall anybody else complaining
about this.
Personally I'd wonder for example about whether the server has a really
slow gettimeofday()...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, s5aly@yahoo.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: Confused by 'timing' results
In-Reply-To: <25773.1283446146@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox