Re: Effects of IDLE processes

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: JM <jerome(at)gmanmi(dot)tv>
Subject: Re: Effects of IDLE processes
Date: 2005-02-21 00:50:18
Message-ID: 4219304A.1070408@bigfoot.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

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 @#$

Regards
Gaetano Mendola

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Klint Gore 2005-02-21 01:30:21 Re: bad performances using hashjoin
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2005-02-21 00:45:03 Re: bad performances using hashjoin