From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | karl(at)mcs(dot)net (Karl Denninger) |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Heh, the disappearing problem! |
Date: | 1998-03-10 04:05:49 |
Message-ID: | 199803100405.XAA13555@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I've seen this same kind of behavior in a few other places as well; in
> places where you are doing reads and writes in a mixed environment (ie: read
> something, write something (typically in a different table) based on what
> you read) performance of 6.3 has gone in the toilet. Update jobs that used
> to run in tens of seconds are requiring several minutes to complete now.
>
> And again, we're not seeing much disk I/O during this period - but we *ARE*
> seeing a hell of a lot of CPU activity, almost all in user mode.
OK, how about using postgres -t option or profiling to get the function
using so much cpu? This may help us tell where the problem lies. Does
anyone else see such problems? All other reports I hear was that 6.3
was faster.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karl Denninger | 1998-03-10 04:15:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Heh, the disappearing problem! |
Previous Message | Karl Denninger | 1998-03-10 04:04:58 | Heh heh, who broke pg_dump? |