| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | griscom(at)suitable(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Throttling PostgreSQL's CPU usage |
| Date: | 2007-05-09 05:56:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20070509055655.D4C24DCC04A@svr2.hagander.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Thanks for all the feedback. Unfortunately I didn't specify that this
> is running on a WinXP machine (the 3D renderer is an ActiveX plugin),
> and I don't even think "nice" is available. I've tried using the
> Windows Task Manager to set every postgres.exe process to a low
> priority, but that didn't make a difference.
Are you sure you're actually cpu limited? The windows schedules is actually pretty good at down shifting like that. It sounds like you might be i/o bound
instead. Especially if you're on ide disks in this machine.
> Several people have mentioned having multiple processors; my current
> machine is a uni-processor machine, but I believe we could spec the
> actual runtime machine to have multiple processors/cores. I'm only
> running one query at a time; would that query be guaranteed to
> confine itself to a single processor/core?
Yes. Background processes can run on the other, like the background writer. They normally don't use a lot of cpu. You can avoid that as well by setting the cpu
affinity on pg_ctl or postmaster.
> In terms of performance, I don't think simply more power will do the
> trick; I've got an AMD 3200+, and even doubling the power/halving the
> stutter time won't be good enough.
Again, make sure cpu really is the problem.
/Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | david | 2007-05-09 08:57:51 | Re: Best OS for Postgres 8.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2007-05-09 04:58:00 | Re: |