From: | Rodrigo Gonzalez <rjgonzale(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bryan Buecking <buecking(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CPU bound at 99% |
Date: | 2008-04-22 16:21:03 |
Message-ID: | 480E106F.6020704@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Are tables vacuumed often?
Bryan Buecking escribió:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:19AM -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
>
>> On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Buecking wrote:
>>
>>
>>> max_connections = 2400
>>>
>> That is WAY too high. Get a real pooler, such as pgpool, and drop
>> that down to 1000 and test from there.
>>
>
> I agree, but the number of idle connections dont' seem to affect
> performace only memory usage. I'm trying to lessen the load of
> connection setup. But sounds like this tax is minimal?
>
> When these issues started happening, max_connections was set to 1000 and
> I was not using persistent connections.
>
>
>> I see you mentioned 500 concurrent connections. Are each of those
>> connections actually doing something?
>>
>
> Yes out of the 2400 odd connections, 500 are either in SELECT or RESET.
>
>
>> My guess that once you cut down on the number actual connections
>> you'll find that each connection can get it's work done faster
>> and you'll see that number drop significantly.
>>
>
> I agree, but not in this case. I will look at using pooling.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bryan Buecking | 2008-04-22 16:22:37 | Re: CPU bound at 99% |
Previous Message | Bryan Buecking | 2008-04-22 16:16:43 | Re: CPU bound at 99% |