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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
