| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Brain <dbrain(at)bandwidth(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Potential memory usage issue |
| Date: | 2007-03-22 15:35:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3701.1174577736@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> In response to David Brain <dbrain(at)bandwidth(dot)com>:
>> I am curious as to why 'top' gives such different output on the two
>> systems - the datasets are large and so I know I benefit from having
>> high shared_buffers and effective_cache_size settings.
> Have you done any actual queries on the new system? PG won't use the
> shm until it needs it -- and that doesn't occur until it gets a request
> for data via a query.
More accurately, top won't consider shared mem to be part of the process
address space until it's actually touched by that process.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri | 2007-03-22 15:55:02 | Re: Parallel Vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2007-03-22 15:31:39 | Re: Performance of count(*) |