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

Re: Potential memory usage issue

From: David Brain <dbrain(at)bandwidth(dot)com>
To: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Potential memory usage issue
Date: 2007-03-22 13:06:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

Thanks for the response.
Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to David Brain <dbrain(at)bandwidth(dot)com>:
>> I recently migrated one of our large (multi-hundred GB) dbs from an 
>> Intel 32bit platform (Dell 1650 - running 8.1.3) to a 64bit platform 
>> (Dell 1950 - running 8.1.5).  However I am not seeing the performance 
>> gains I would expect
> What were you expecting?  It's possible that your expectations are
> unreasonable.

Possibly - but there is a fair step up hardware performance wise from a 
1650 (Dual 1.4 Ghz PIII with U160 SCSI) to a 1950 (Dual, Dual Core 2.3 
Ghz Xeons with SAS) - so I wasn't necessarily expecting much from the 
32->64 transition (except maybe the option to go > 4GB easily - although 
currently we only have 4GB in the box), but was from the hardware 

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.

> Provide more information, for one thing.  I'm assuming from the top output
> that this is some version of Linux, but more details on that are liable
> to elicit more helpful feedback.
Yes the OS is Linux - on the 1650 version 2.6.14, on the 1950 version 2.6.18



David Brain -

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bill MoranDate: 2007-03-22 13:17:00
Subject: Re: Potential memory usage issue
Previous:From: Bill MoranDate: 2007-03-22 12:50:37
Subject: Re: Potential memory usage issue

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group