| From: | Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query |
| Date: | 2016-09-10 20:27:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAEP4nAx8y9K-mb3CxMPP9ty-L9sLaBNhrR4LJKgcXbXkGxP00g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 at 09:39 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-09-07 23:37:31 +0000, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> > If someone asks for I could provide SQL + EXPLAIN, but it feels
> irrelevant
> > here.
>
> Why is that? information_schema are normal sql queries, and some of them
> far from trivial.
>
> Andres
>
Hi Andres,
I completely agree. With 'irrelevant' I was only trying to imply that
irrespective of the complexity of the query, a replicated box was seeing
similar slowness whereas a Restored DB wasn't. It felt that the SQL itself
isn't to blame here...
In effect, I was trying to ask if I am forgetting / missing something very
obvious / important that could cause such an observation.
As others recommended, I am unable to have direct access to the production
(master / slave) instances and so GDB / stack trace options are out of
bounds at this time. I'll revert if I am able to do that.
-
thanks
robins
--
-
robins
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-10 20:35:48 | Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-10 20:21:50 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn |