On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Kelphet Xiong wrote:
> I guess it is because postgres only uses a single thread to read
> the data or “pushing the data around in RAM” according to Kevin’s statement.
> Then my question is actually why postgres can not use the remaining
> 93.4%CPU.
postgres can u
Thanks a lot for replies from Kevin, Ken, and Ants Aasma. I really
aappreciate your suggestions and comments.
My server configuration is two physical quad-core CPUs with
hyper-threading enabled.
Each CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620@2.40GHz. Physical memory is 16GB.
I set shared_buffers as 4GB,
On Mar 28, 2013 9:07 PM, "kelphet xiong" wrote:
> explain analyze select * from inventory;
> QUERY PLAN
>
>
--
>
> Seq S
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:03:42PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> kelphet xiong 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
> > qu
kelphet xiong 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 an
Hi all,
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
