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

Reply via email to