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

Re: Linux mis-reporting memory

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Linux mis-reporting memory
Date: 2007-09-21 10:08:45
Message-ID: 1190369325.4661.178.camel@PCD12478 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:43 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> The other possibility is that Postgres just hasn't even touched a large part
> of its shared buffers. 

But then how do you explain the example I gave, with a 5.5GB table
seq-scanned 3 times, shared buffers set to 12 GB, and top still showing
almost 100% memory as cached and no SWAP "used" ? In this case you can't
say postgres didn't touch it's shared buffers - or a sequential scan
won't use the shared buffers ?


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-09-21 10:34:53
Subject: Re: Linux mis-reporting memory
Previous:From: Csaba NagyDate: 2007-09-21 10:03:44
Subject: Searching for the cause of a bad plan

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group