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