From: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)mcs(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Heh, the disappearing problem! |
Date: | 1998-03-10 04:15:55 |
Message-ID: | 19980309221555.63948@mcs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 09, 1998 at 11:05:49PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I've seen this same kind of behavior in a few other places as well; in
> > places where you are doing reads and writes in a mixed environment (ie: read
> > something, write something (typically in a different table) based on what
> > you read) performance of 6.3 has gone in the toilet. Update jobs that used
> > to run in tens of seconds are requiring several minutes to complete now.
> >
> > And again, we're not seeing much disk I/O during this period - but we *ARE*
> > seeing a hell of a lot of CPU activity, almost all in user mode.
>
> OK, how about using postgres -t option or profiling to get the function
> using so much cpu? This may help us tell where the problem lies. Does
> anyone else see such problems? All other reports I hear was that 6.3
> was faster.
Docs on this somewhere?
I'll be happy to profile it if I can figure out how! :-)
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl(at)MCS(dot)Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-03-10 04:16:28 | Re: Why no Oracle, Sybase, Informix etc. |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-03-10 04:05:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Heh, the disappearing problem! |