| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter T(dot) Brown" <peter(at)memeticsystems(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Luis Amigo'" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es>, "'Jean Huveneers'" <j(dot)huveneers(at)farcourier(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum Performance Follow-up Question |
| Date: | 2002-01-24 18:37:04 |
| Message-ID: | 16462.1011897424@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Peter T. Brown" <peter(at)memeticsystems(dot)com> writes:
> But how can Postgres be 'forced' to keep a table in memory? I've noticed
> that on our Dual Pentium4, 1GB RAM machine, the size of the individual
> postgres threads is very small. Top reports it as like 5K or 20K (I believe
> that's what it means). Shouldn't this number be 100's of MB if postgres is
> properly moving my tables to RAM? I do notice that the system cache is very
> very large...
System cache == RAM. This is the behavior you want.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter T. Brown | 2002-01-24 18:47:14 | Re: Maximum Performance Follow-up Question |
| Previous Message | Luis Amigo | 2002-01-24 18:23:30 | Re: Maximum Performance Follow-up Question |