| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Smolsky <sitrash(at)email(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring memory usage |
| Date: | 2011-12-27 16:17:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=2weCC3Nvs=TpU=K6Lx8wDL2FU+8W-egT59iLQcL5zk3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> It depends on the workload. Your 16M setting would make many of my clients'
> systems slow to an absolute crawl for some queries, and they don't run into
> swap issues, because we've made educated guesses about usage patterns.
Exactly. I've had an old Pentium4 machine that did reporting and only
had 2G RAM with a 256M work_mem setting, while the heavily loaded
machine I mentioned earlier handles something on the order of several
hundred concurrent users and thousands of queries a second, and 16Meg
was a pretty big setting on that machine, but since most of the
queries were of the select * from sometable where pkid=123456 it
wasn't too dangerous.
It's all about the workload. For that, we need more info from the OP.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-12-27 16:45:06 | Re: Exploring memory usage |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-12-27 16:14:40 | Re: Exploring memory usage |