From: | Jeff Trout <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah(at)cs(dot)earlham(dot)edu> |
Cc: | postgres performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: extremly low memory usage |
Date: | 2005-08-18 13:00:31 |
Message-ID: | EA4219B9-E2B0-4756-ABF2-D84F245FDFB5@torgo.978.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Aug 17, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> I just put together a system with 6GB of ram on a 14 disk raid 10
> array.
> When I run my usual big painful queries, I get very little to know
> memory usage. My production box (raid 5 4GB ram) hovers at 3.9GB used
> most of the time. the new devel box sits at around 250MB.
>
Is the system performing fine? Are you touching as much data as the
production box?
If the system is performing fine don't worry about it.
> work_mem = 2097151 # min 64, size in KB
This is EXTREMELY high. You realize this is the amount of memory
that can be used per-sort and per-hash build in a query? You can end
up with multiples of this on a single query. If you have some big
queries that are run infrequently have them set it manually.
> effective_cache_size = 3600000 <-----this is a little out of
> control, but would it have any real effect?
This doesn't allocate anything - it is a hint to the planner about
how much data it can assume is cached.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John A Meinel | 2005-08-18 14:44:34 | Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer. |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-08-18 08:56:41 | Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer. |