Re: Finding bottleneck

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Finding bottleneck
Date: 2005-08-22 14:17:53
Message-ID: 15638.1124720273@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
> One thing that might interest you is that the penalty in 8.1 for
> stats_command_string=true in this type of access pattern is very high: I
> was experimenting to see if the new cpu efficiency gave me enough of a
> budget to start using this. This more than doubled the cpu load to
> around 70% with a runtime of 82 seconds. This is actually worse than
> 8.0 :(.

That seems quite peculiar; AFAICS the pgstat code shouldn't be any
slower than before. At first I thought it might be because we'd
increased PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE, but actually that happened before
8.0 release, so it shouldn't be a factor in this comparison.

Can anyone else confirm a larger penalty for stats_command_string in
HEAD than in 8.0? A self-contained test case would be nice too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremiah Jahn 2005-08-22 14:42:43 Re: extremly low memory usage
Previous Message Jignesh Shah 2005-08-22 13:47:38 MemoryContextSwitchTo during table scan?