Обсуждение: Effects of IDLE processes
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
TIA,
JM <jerome@gmanmi.tv> writes:
> I was wondering if there is a DB performance reduction if there are a lot of
> IDLE processes.
There will be some overhead, but I dunno if anyone's ever tried to
measure it.
regards, tom lane
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
After a long battle with technology, Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.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"?
Christopher Browne wrote: > After a long battle with technology, Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.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. For "not at all" I was refering the fact that the normal engine work and maintenances are not affected ( at least your iron shall be able to support all these connections and processes ). A long transaction for example can stop the entire engine if for example a "Vacuum full" remain stuck on some tables locked by that transaction Regards Gaetano Mendola