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

memory

From: Tom Allison <tallison(at)tacocat(dot)net>
To: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: memory
Date: 2006-11-10 01:50:24
Message-ID: 4553DAE0.4090508@tacocat.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
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.

That being done, I'm running some jobs now on this server and have noticed that 
postgres uses only a few percentage points of the available memory according to top.

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.

Right now all it seems to burn in CPU cycles more than RAM.

Maybe I don't understand much about how postgres will appear to operate...

But is the memory limited by the shared_buffers * max_connections?

Responses

  • Re: memory at 2006-11-10 01:58:59 from Tom Lane
  • Re: memory at 2006-11-10 02:18:15 from Richard Broersma Jr

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-10 01:58:59
Subject: Re: memory
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-09 23:01:58
Subject: Re: SSL

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