Message-ID: <001201c5cda7$4314b430$0b00a8c0@forge>
From: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<20487.1128953925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration??? 
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:31:10 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

When I ment memory allocation, I look with htop to see the process list, CPU 
load, memory, swap. So I didn't ment the a postgre process uses that amount 
of memory.

I read some tuning things, I made the things that are written there, but I 
think that there improvements can be made.

regards,
Andy.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Server misconfiguration???


> "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net> writes:
>> I get the feeling the server is somehow missconfigured or it does not
>> work at full parameter. If I look at memory allocation, it never goes
>> over 250MB whatever I do with the database.
>
> That is not wrong.  Postgres expects the kernel to be doing disk
> caching, so the amount of memory that's effectively being used for
> database work includes not only what is shown as belonging to the
> PG processes, but some portion of the kernel disk buffers as well.
> You don't really *want* the processes eating all of available RAM.
>
> I concur with Chris K-L's comments that you should reduce rather
> than increase your settings.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>