Message-ID: <4E942E82.9010307@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:54:42 -0300
From: alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load
References: <4E92F294.9010405@gmail.com>	<4E92FB87.1030703@peak6.com>
	<4E932BFC.7070007@gmail.com>	<4E92E9340200002500041CD5@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4E933F4B.2080808@gmail.com>	<4E9303A00200002500041CFE@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<4E9356E5.6000308@gmail.com>	<4E9314A50200002500041D12@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<CAEV0TzD8uae+1yqK3Z9XYL9_S57ZJHz3w-UirHaCvSj=XodiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpaOOu_ADrD7h9Cn_EazPrz4=QQj+jTePyHGEvt7BjJi3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQpaOOu_ADrD7h9Cn_EazPrz4=QQj+jTePyHGEvt7BjJi3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Em 10-10-2011 23:19, Claudio Freire escreveu:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Samuel Gendler
> <sgendler@ideasculptor.com>  wrote:
>> The original question doesn't actually say that performance has gone down,
>> only that cpu utilization has gone up. Presumably, with lots more RAM, it is
>> blocking on I/O a lot less, so it isn't necessarily surprising that CPU
>> utilization has gone up.  The only problem would be if db performance has
>> gotten worse. Maybe I missed a message where that was covered?  I don't see
>> it in the original query to the list.
>
> Load average (which is presumably the metric in question) includes
> both processes using the CPU and processes waiting for I/O.
> So it *would* be strange for load average to go up like that, if
> database configuration remains the same (ie: equal query plans)

Yep, that's the point. Iostat and vmstat reports a very low use of the 
disks (lower than before the changes are made - perhaps because the cache).
Nothing changed in database itself.