From: | Sören Meyer-Eppler <soerenme(at)google(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0.4 blocking in lseek? |
Date: | 2011-10-31 14:09:37 |
Message-ID: | 4EAEAC21.5080209@google.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> embedded in often-executed plpgsql functions, for instance. Can you
> identify which table the lseeks are issued against?
I wouldn't know how? I'm just using htop and "s" on the postgres process
to find these...
> (Now, having said that, I don't see how that type of theory explains no
> CPU load.
My bad sorry. I was relaying information from the guy administering the
server. It turns out that "no CPU load" really meant: only one of the
cores is being utilized. On a 16 core machine that looks like "no load"
but of course for the individual query still means 100%.
> But you're really going to need to provide more info before
> anyone can explain it, and finding out what the lseeks are on would be
> one good step.)
I have attached two of the offending execution plans. Anything obviously
wrong with them?
thank you for looking into it!
Sören
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
execution_plans.txt | text/plain | 2.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-31 15:28:01 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0.4 blocking in lseek? |
Previous Message | Sören Meyer-Eppler | 2011-10-31 13:56:32 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0.4 blocking in lseek? |