From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pgsql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Capping CPU usage? |
Date: | 2002-12-12 05:52:10 |
Message-ID: | 3547.1039672330@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
>> I had a new question from a client: is it possible to "cap" CPU usage
>> for PostgreSQL running on Linux?
> Anyway, would it be sufficient to simply reduce the priority of the
> process?
If the issue is to prevent Postgres *as a whole* from hogging CPU usage,
I would think that nice-ing the postmaster at launch would work
beautifully. Requests like "I want Postgres to use no more than 30%
of CPU" make no sense to me: if the CPU is otherwise idle, why should
you insist on reserving 70% of it for the idle loop?
But what we commonly see is "I want to cap the resource usage of this
particular query", and that is a whole lot harder. You cannot win by
nice-ing one single backend, because of priority-inversion concerns.
(The queries you would like to be high-priority might be blocked waiting
for locks held by low-priority backends.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-12-12 07:13:02 | Re: Good/Bad RAID and SCSI controllers? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-12 05:41:33 | Re: Docs: GIST |