Re: Question about postmaster's CPU usage
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Question about postmaster's CPU usage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1364504622.71422.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Question about postmaster's CPU usage (kelphet xiong <kelphet@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Question about postmaster's CPU usage
Re: Question about postmaster's CPU usage |
Список | pgsql-performance |
kelphet xiong <kelphet@gmail.com> wrote: > When I use postgres and issue a simple sequential scan for a > table inventory using query "select * from inventory;", I can see > from "top" that postmaster is using 100% CPU, which limits the > query execution time. My question is that, why CPU is the > bottleneck here and what is postmaster doing? Is there any way to > improve the performance? Thanks! > explain analyze select * from inventory; > > Seq Scan on inventory (cost=0.00..180937.00 rows=11745000 width=16) (actual time=0.005..1030.403 rows=11745000 loops=1) > Total runtime: 1750.889 ms So it is reading and returning 11.7 million rows in about 1 second, or about 88 nanoseconds (billionths of a second) per row. You can't be waiting for a hard drive for many of those reads, or it would take a lot longer, so the bottleneck is the CPU pushing the data around in RAM. I'm not sure why 100% CPU usage would surprise you. Are you wondering why the CPU works on the query straight through until it is done, rather than taking a break periodically and letting the unfinished work sit there? -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: