Thread: Effects of IDLE processes

Effects of IDLE processes

From
JM
Date:
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,


Re: Effects of IDLE processes

From
Tom Lane
Date:
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

Re: Effects of IDLE processes

From
Gaetano Mendola
Date:
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



Re: Effects of IDLE processes

From
Christopher Browne
Date:
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"?

Re: Effects of IDLE processes

From
Gaetano Mendola
Date:
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