Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> I'm trying to make sense of the memory usage reported by 'top', compared
>> to what "pg_database_size" shows. Here's one result:'
> You are missing the most important parts of the equation:
Thanks for your patience, Joshua. I'm new at performance tuning.
> 1. What version of PostgreSQL.
Now, 8.1. We are evaluating 8.2 currently and could potentially upgrade
> 2. What operating system -- scratch , I see freebsd
> 3. How big is your pg_dump in comparison to the pg_database_size()
Using the compressed, custom format: 360M. It was recently 1.2G
due to logging tables that were pruned recently. These tables are
only inserted into and are not otherwise accessed by the application.
> 4. What type of raid do you have?
> 5. What is your work_mem set to?
1024 (left at the default)
> 6. What about effective_cache_size?
For any other settings, it's probably the defaults, too.
> 7. Do you analyze? How often?
Once, nightly. I'm currently learning and experience with autovacuuming
to see if there is a more optimal arrangement of autovacuuming + nightly
A test on Friday was failure: Autovacuuming brought the application to a
crawl, and with 8.1, I couldn't see what table it was stuck on. I had
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay set to "10".
Thanks again for your experienced help.
>> select pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size('production'));
>> 6573 MB
>> Now, looking at memory use with "top", there is a lot memory that isn't
>> being used on the system:
>> Mem: 470M Active, 2064M Inact
>> ( 3 Gigs RAM, total ).
>> Overall performance is decent, so maybe there's no
>> problem. However, I wonder if we've under-allocated memory to
>> PostgreSQL. (This is a dedicated FreeBSD DB server).
>> Some memory settings include:
>> shared_buffers = 8192 (we have 450 connections)
>> max_fsm_pages = 1250000 (we kept getting HINTs to bump it, so we did)
>> Maybe we should be bumping up the "sort_mem" and "vacuum_mem" as well?
>> I do sometimes see sorting and vacuuming as showing up as things I'd
>> like to run faster.
>> This list has been a great resource for performance tuning help, and I
>> continue to appreciate your help. We've used PostgreSQL on every project
>> we've had a choice on for the last 10 years. (Has it been that long?!)
>> We've never regretted it once.
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Dave Cramer||Date: 2007-02-26 17:28:37|
|Subject: Re: does prepareThreshold work? forced to use old driver|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-02-26 17:08:03|
|Subject: Re: low memory usage reported by 'top' indicates poor tuning?|