Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: memory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Allison <tallison(at)tacocat(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: memory
Date: 2006-11-10 01:58:59
Message-ID: 14565.1163123939@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
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

Responses

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-10 02:05:14
Subject: Re: memory
Previous:From: Tom AllisonDate: 2006-11-10 01:50:24
Subject: memory

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group