Re: shared_buffers Question

From: Joe Lester <joe_lester(at)sweetwater(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers Question
Date: 2004-08-17 20:02:49
Message-ID: 69FC9F49-F088-11D8-BDD7-000A95A58EA0@sweetwater.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

I'm doing a nightly vacuum... so I don't think that's it, although
should I be doing a FULL vacuum instead? The size of my data directory
is only about 389 MB. I'll take a closer look at file sizes going
forward.

echo "VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE;" | /Library/PostgreSQL/bin/psql -U
postgres officelink 2>> vacuum.log

Thanks.

From: "Scott Marlowe"
Your shared buffers are almost certainly not the problem here. 2000
shared buffers is only 16 Megs of ram, max. More than likely, the
database filled up the data directory / partition because it wasn't
being vacuumed.

On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 10:25, Joe Lester wrote:
> I've been running a postgres server on a Mac (10.3, 512MB RAM) with
200
> clients connecting for about 2 months without a crash. However just
> yesterday the database and all the clients hung. When I looked at the
> Mac I'm using as the postgres server it had a window up that said that
> there was no more disk space available to write memory too. I ended up
> having to restart the whole machine. I would like to configure
postgres
> so that is does not rely so heavily on disk-based memory but, rather,
> tries to stay within the scope of the 512MB of physical memory in the
> Mac.

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frank van Vugt 2004-08-17 21:29:52 Why is the number of dead tuples causing the performance of deferred triggers to degrading so rapidly (exponentionally)?
Previous Message Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud 2004-08-17 18:33:21 Re: Postgres does not utilize indexes. Why?