You'll have to provide more data:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:14 AM Pawan Sharma <pawanpg0963@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having real high CPU issue (95-98%), with SELECT statements and select queries contains multiple AND operator, is it
willcause any CPU Spike..???
If you do a query the only reason it is not hitting 100% cpu is it is
waiting for something, like disk or network or locked data, so with
all data caches, fast networks ( or small results ) a standalone query
will use 100% CPU during its run ( it must, if it is not doing it
something is rotten in the scheduler ).
If some set of queries is using 100% cpu during, i.e., 5 minutes, they
may be asking for cached data that is normal.
A proper question will be "x queries of type y are eating 95% CPU in
my machine Z, with this type of data, I think it is not correct
because blah-blah". An spike during the query execution is the correct
outcome, CPU time is not like petrol, if you do not use it is lost,
and careis taken doing things like paralell jobs to insure queries use
as much CPU time as possible ( because typically a query needs, say, 5
core-seconds, if you use 10% cpu in an octacore that is 3.75 wall
secs, if you use 100% it is 0.375 ).
Also note locks/big result transmissions aside a fully cached DB is
cpu-limited ( and would be for selects with complex conditions ), I
would expect 100% usage if enough ( for 24 cpus ) clients are doing
complex queries against a cached database.
Your problem may be "it is using 100% of 24 cpus during a minute"
where you think "it should be just a sec", but the 100% figure is
better, you do not want your cpu to sit iddle.
> apps team is using sub-partition, PG11, CPU:24, Mem: 16GB
...
> effective_cache_size
> ----------------------
> 22GB
...
> max_worker_processes
> ----------------------
> 8
I may be mislead, but isn't 16Gb a little spartan for 24 CPU with 8
workers ( per query ? ). Also, I assume the 22Gb is because you are
accounting for a huge host cache.
Francisco Olarte.