From: Bryan Buecking <buecking@gmail.com>
To: Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: CPU bound at 99%
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:10:26 +0900
Message-ID: <20080422161020.GE5961@starling-software.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DCD21583-38AA-4E01-BA29-39A7078259FE@myemma.com>
References: <20080422153045.GB5961@starling-software.com>
<DCD21583-38AA-4E01-BA29-39A7078259FE@myemma.com>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:19AM -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Buecking wrote:
>
> >max_connections = 2400
>
> That is WAY too high. Get a real pooler, such as pgpool, and drop
> that down to 1000 and test from there.
I agree, but the number of idle connections dont' seem to affect
performace only memory usage. I'm trying to lessen the load of
connection setup. But sounds like this tax is minimal?
When these issues started happening, max_connections was set to 1000 and
I was not using persistent connections.
> I see you mentioned 500 concurrent connections. Are each of those
> connections actually doing something?
Yes out of the 2400 odd connections, 500 are either in SELECT or RESET.
> My guess that once you cut down on the number actual connections
> you'll find that each connection can get it's work done faster
> and you'll see that number drop significantly.
I agree, but not in this case. I will look at using pooling.
--
Bryan Buecking http://www.starling-software.com
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: buecking@gmail.com, erik@myemma.com
Subject: Re: CPU bound at 99%
In-Reply-To: <20080422161020.GE5961@starling-software.com>
* 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