On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, wrote:
> Hit send on that one too soon. I see 6.5k access share locks out of 7.5k
> transactions.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, wrote:
>
>> I have a 9.2 server that occasionally becomes CPU bound. Disk wait is
>> nominal and there's no memory pressure.
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, wrote:
>
> > I have a 9.2 server that occasionally becomes CPU bound. Disk wait is
> > nominal and there's no memory pressure. The workload is almost all reads
> > and the cache hit rate is high.
Maybe you'd benefit from something like the patch proposed here
Hit send on that one too soon. I see 6.5k access share locks out of 7.5k
transactions.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, wrote:
> I have a 9.2 server that occasionally becomes CPU bound. Disk wait is
> nominal and there's no memory pressure. The workload is almost all reads
> and the cache hit