| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "McKinzie, Alan (Alan)" <alanmck(at)avaya(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How is memory allocated/used by Postgresql Database connections |
| Date: | 2013-07-25 17:32:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yzzrtSWvV=1cwLbAYGBc5xNXHEMB+Sx0BGtAdme=ix8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:23 AM, McKinzie, Alan (Alan)
<alanmck(at)avaya(dot)com> wrote:
> FYI – I am using smem (on a linux server) to monitor the memory allocated to
> our Database connections. In an attempt to lower our memory footprint, I
> lowered our setting for work_mem from 1MB down to 500kB (in addition I
> enabled log_temp_files to see the SQL statements that now use temp files for
> sorting and hash operations).
1MB is already pretty small. If you have a lot of connections all
using temp space at the same time, you should probably consider using
a connection pooler to limit that number and then increasing work_mem,
rather than decreasing it.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-07-29 20:28:56 | Re: FTS performance issue - planner problem identified (but only partially resolved) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-25 13:41:42 | Re: How is memory allocated/used by Postgresql Database connections |