Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D371A2E004C for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:19:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53165-01 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:19:30 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.30.210]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D26D2E0037 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:19:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 32275 invoked by uid 503); 16 Apr 2008 01:00:37 -0000 Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail174.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 16 Apr 2008 01:00:37 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2008 23:19:32 -0000 Received: from par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net (HELO apollo13.peufeu.com) (88.161.102.87) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2008 23:19:32 -0000 To: "Thomas Spreng" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Oddly slow queries From: PFC Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3D7728ED-3D36-47E6-9266-351073ED4E11@socket.ch> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:24:01 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3D7728ED-3D36-47E6-9266-351073ED4E11@socket.ch> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.24 (Linux) X-Ovh-Remote: 88.161.102.87 (par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 5743496901272012336 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.801 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200804/196 X-Sequence-Number: 29689 > The queries in question (select's) occasionally take up to 5 mins even > if they take ~2-3 sec under "normal" conditions, there are no sequencial > scans done in those queries. There are not many users connected (around > 3, maybe) to this database usually since it's still in a testing phase. > I tried to hunt down the problem by playing around with resource usage > cfg options but it didn't really made a difference. Could that be caused by a CHECKPOINT ?