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 E702BD8CEC for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:19:05 -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 33618-09 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:18:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B5ED9CA8 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9AEIj8N020488; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:18:45 -0400 (EDT) To: "Andy" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration??? In-reply-to: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge> References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge> Comments: In-reply-to "Andy" message dated "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:39:45 +0300" Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:18:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20487.1128953925@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/166 X-Sequence-Number: 14934 "Andy" 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