From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Bryan Buecking <buecking@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: CPU bound at 99%
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:23:55 -0600
Message-ID: <dcc563d10804220923k3fcce99dw79886f735db991b0@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080422161020.GE5961@starling-software.com>
References: <20080422153045.GB5961@starling-software.com>
<DCD21583-38AA-4E01-BA29-39A7078259FE@myemma.com>
<20080422161020.GE5961@starling-software.com>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Bryan Buecking <buecking@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
Not entirely true. There are certain things that happen that require
one backend to notify ALL OTHER backends. when this happens a lot,
then the system will slow to a crawl.
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: scott.marlowe@gmail.com, buecking@gmail.com, erik@myemma.com
Subject: Re: CPU bound at 99%
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10804220923k3fcce99dw79886f735db991b0@mail.gmail.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