I promised that I will get back to the group with the reason. Well, of course
was a query :). I do use a search engine file system based(lucene) that will
take any desired entity saved into the database and find the primary keys and
then do a select * from entity where id is in (:ids)If I get too many
matches(3000-4000)... that will delay my postmaster and that postmaster
associated with the query would take 10-15 minutes to process that query. So,
now I limit that to 500, anything bigger than that will ask user to refine the
query.However this whole investigation made me observe some things. On my
server box 7.4.7 I have some queries that are executing pretty slow 1.2-1.5secs
it's a lot for a query that goes thru 5000 records. On my local environment 8.1
the same queries on similar table size executes much faster like 200-400ms. Do
you know if this is a known issue or my dev box is better than my server box? I
do have indexes on those fields I have criteria and order by on, I did run the
reindex and I did a full vacuum. Anything else I need to do or I just need to
go ahead an do an upgrade to 8.2 ? Another thing I try to figure it out is the
postgresql.conf setting. I wanted only to log the statements that are taking
more than 500ms, I enabled that in my conf file but that alone won't track the
statements. It looks I need pt make log_statement=true but that will track all
the statements. Is there anything I miss here ?Please let me know what you
think.MCPs.I heard people complaining about my posting format. I use the
hotmail web interface and the way they send the message is beyond my control
;-|> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:13:02 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postmaster processes
taking all the CPU> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:08:26PM -0500, MC Moisei
wrote:> > Yes all the connection are coming from within the box so no network>
> latency.Well, isn't the swap can be because too many process> > postmaster
are requiring more memory. > > But why are they requring more memory? Do you
maybe have (e.g.)> work_mem set too high, and that's what is causing your
problem? Or> shared buffers too big? This is a common error, and on a smaller
set> of data, it won't hurt; but when the data gets to a point, you lose.> > A>
> -- > Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]> A certain description of men are
for getting out of debt, yet are> against all taxes for raising money to pay it
off.> --Alexander Hamilton> > ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive
FAQ?> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
