From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | andris(at)neti(dot)ee |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Serious issues with CPU usage |
Date: | 2003-09-06 00:05:00 |
Message-ID: | 28675.1062806700@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
<andris(at)neti(dot)ee> writes:
> i'm having _serious_ issues of postgres hogging up the CPU over time. A graph
> showing this can be seen at http://andri.estpak.ee/cpu0.png .
You really haven't shown us anything that would explain that graph ...
repeated UPDATEs will slow down a little until you vacuum, but not
by the ratio you seem to be indicating. At least not if they're
indexscans. If you've also got sequential-scan queries, and you're
doing many zillion updates between vacuums, the answer is to vacuum
more often. A decent rule of thumb is to vacuum whenever you've updated
more than about 10% of the rows in a table since your last vacuum.
> A VACUUM FULL is a remedy to this problem, but a simple VACUUM isn't.
I find that odd; maybe there's something else going on here. But you've
not given enough details to speculate.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Relaxin | 2003-09-06 00:55:46 | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
Previous Message | andris | 2003-09-05 21:58:29 | Serious issues with CPU usage |