X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC2C52C2B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54:45 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 97294-07
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:54:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lakermmtao06.cox.net (lakermmtao06.cox.net [68.230.240.33])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0D152D10
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54:37 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [68.3.22.74]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net
	(InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
	id <20050714065435.PEON2772.lakermmtao06.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]>;
	Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:54:35 -0400
Message-ID: <42D60C2E.3020004@works4me.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:54:38 -0700
From: Dennis <dennis@works4me.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Mitchell <david.mitchell@telogis.com>
Cc: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance problems ... 100 cpu utilization
References: <42D567DB.6000100@works4me.com> <db4l9c$1g4t$1@news.hub.org>
	<42D5DBEB.4010503@works4me.com> <42D5F315.3090301@telogis.com>
In-Reply-To: <42D5F315.3090301@telogis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0528-3, 07/13/2005), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200507/168
X-Sequence-Number: 13409

David Mitchell wrote:

> What is the load average on this machine? Do you do many updates? If 
> you do a lot of updates, perhaps you haven't vacuumed recently. We 
> were seeing similar symptoms when we started load testing our stuff 
> and it turned out we were vacuuming too infrequently.

The load average at the 100% utilization point was about 30! A vacuum 
analyze was done before the test was started. I believe there are many 
more selects than updates happening at any one time.

Dennis