Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Effects of IDLE processes

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Effects of IDLE processes
Date: 2005-02-21 03:18:31
Message-ID: m3r7jaa9dk.fsf@knuth.knuth.cbbrowne.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
After a long battle with technology, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, an earthling, wrote:
> JM wrote:
>> Hi ALL,
>> 
>> 	I was wondering if there is a DB performance reduction if
>> there are a lot of IDLE processes.
>> 
>> 30786 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>> 32504 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>> 32596 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  1722 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  1724 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  3881 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  6332 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  6678 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  6700 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  6768 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  8544 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  8873 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  8986 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  9000 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  9010 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  9013 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  9016 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  9019 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>  9020 ?        S      0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>> 

> In my experience not at all, you have to wonder if some of that are
> "idle in transaction" that are really a pain in the @#$

I'd be concerned about "idle" processes insofar as they are holding on
to _some_ memory that isn't shared.

"idle in transaction" is quite another matter; long-running
transactions certainly do lead to evil.  When running Slony-I, for
instance, "idle in transaction" means that pg_listener entries are
being held onto so they cannot be vacuumed out, and that's only one
example of a possible evil...
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/languages.html
You know  how most packages say  "Open here". What is  the protocol if
the package says, "Open somewhere else"?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-21 03:48:06
Subject: Re: bad performances using hashjoin
Previous:From: David BrownDate: 2005-02-21 03:01:20
Subject: Re: bad performances using hashjoin

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group