Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7wiL-0000BN-CK for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:11:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7wiJ-00027P-OF for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:11:55 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7wiI-00027H-HL for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:11:54 +0000 Received: from hogranch.com ([75.101.82.47]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X7wiF-0000e7-Hr for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:11:52 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (porker [192.168.0.2]) by hogranch.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id s6I1BkZ05080 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:11:46 -0700 Message-ID: <53C8744D.8030506@hogranch.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:11:41 -0700 From: John R Pierce User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Checkpoint_segments optimal value References: <20140717140103.4e8c05e8ef5b89817b4d160a@potentialtech.com> <7639.1405620388@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140717150035.6822faed729cbd871edcc5ad@potentialtech.com> <53C86017.7020903@hogranch.com> <53C865EE.50803@hogranch.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-HawgScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-HawgScanner: Found to be clean X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org On 7/17/2014 5:36 PM, Prabhjot Sheena wrote: > The overall load of system is good. It is a vm but the other database > is running normal and not doing much activity other database? is that on the same postgresql cluster? or on a seperate instance of the postgres server on the same VM? or on a seperate VM on the same host ? what does `iostat -x 5` show ? let it run a bunch of samples, then run this slow query and get more samples. pay attention to the disk drive(s) the database is stored on. high %utilization or await times would be a bad thing. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general