X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C884DA983 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:04:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36259-02 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:04:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailer.eglobalreach.net (mail.padalacentral.com [202.124.128.22]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD03FDA9C4 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:04:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ghwk02002147 (localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by mailer.eglobalreach.net (8.11.6p2/) with ESMTP id j9L845X25506 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:04:05 +0800 From: "Christian Paul B. Cosinas" To: Subject: Re: Used Memory Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:08:16 -0000 Message-ID: <011501c5d616$97766330$1e21100a@ghwk02002147> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <28EE02F5BBCA481B51C4E44E@[192.168.1.72]> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Thread-Index: AcXWEFcoAHG1cVOITHaHyPh019MTKAABiD4A X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.679 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05, URIBL_SBL=0.629] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/293 X-Sequence-Number: 15061 Also Does Creating Temporary table in a function and not dropping them affects the performance of the database? -----Original Message----- From: Jens-Wolfhard Schicke [mailto:ml+pgsql-performance@asco.de] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:23 AM To: Christian Paul B. Cosinas; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Used Memory --On Freitag, Oktober 21, 2005 03:40:47 +0000 "Christian Paul B. = Cosinas"=20 wrote: > I am having a confusion to the memory handling of postgreSQL. > I rebooted my Server which is a PostgreSQL 8.0 Running on Redhat 9,=20 > which is a Dual Xeon Server and 6 gig of memory. > > Of course there is not much memory still used since it is just = restarted. > > But after a number of access to the tables the memory is being used=20 > and it is not being free up. Actually after this access to the=20 > database and the server is just idle > > The memory is still used up. I am monitoring this using the "free" > command which gives me about 5.5 gig of used memory and the rest free. I suppose you looked at the top row of the free output? Because there the disk-cache is counted as "used"... Have a look at the second row where buffers are counted as free, which they more or less = are. > Is there something that I should do to minimize and free up the used=20 > memory? No, the buffers make your database faster because they reduce direct = disk access > I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? > http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html I don't :) Mit freundlichem Gru=DF, Jens Schicke --=20 Jens Schicke j.schicke@asco.de asco GmbH http://www.asco.de Mittelweg 7 Tel 0531/3906-127 38106 Braunschweig Fax 0531/3906-400 I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html =20