Tom Allison <tallison(at)tacocat(dot)net> writes:
> I've a relatively small machine (512MB) that I am setting up as a small area
> database server. And I was trying to get the memory balanced out for this
> machine. I don't plan on running anything other than postgresql and whatever
> might be required to operate sanely on the network.
> So I was changing my shared buffers and found I couldn't really get over 3500
> before SHMMAX started complaining.
Well, that's only about 28MB. A lot of systems have unreasonably small
SHMMAX settings (historical leftover); you might try increasing yours.
If you're running something older than PG 8.1, it's not necessarily
worth your trouble to increase shared_buffers beyond that, but in 8.1
I'd encourage you to try going higher.
> So, I'm trying to understand why I don't have more memory being used
> up by these SQL jobs. I was assuming that running 100 SQL
> statements/second would suck up a lot of memory.
Not necessarily. How much data do they touch?
regards, tom lane
In response to
- memory at 2006-11-10 01:50:24 from Tom Allison
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-11-10 02:05:14|
|Subject: Re: memory |
|Previous:||From: Tom Allison||Date: 2006-11-10 01:50:24|