Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E5E14E23D4 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:50:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail-out1.uio.no ([2001:700:100:10::57]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RdQJb-0007Ld-Vi for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:50:57 +0000 Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1RdQJP-0002j3-QI; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:50:43 +0100 Received: from bbking.uio.no ([129.240.6.205]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) user rafael (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RdQJP-0000BY-CC; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:50:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4EF21C70.5000200@usit.uio.no> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:50:40 +0100 From: Rafael Martinez Organization: University of Oslo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111104 Red Hat/3.1.16-2.el6_1 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Ringer CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Dramatic change in memory usage with version 9.1 References: <4EEF5296.2030101@usit.uio.no> <4EF11EE6.6020203@ringerc.id.au> In-Reply-To: <4EF11EE6.6020203@ringerc.id.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 4 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 3443 max rcpts/h 19 ratelimit 0 X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-10.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.023, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, UIO_PGP_SIGNED=-3, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: 6EABB5C8AFF2AF83D7AEA0153BABD54CC8D83CFE X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.6.205 spam_score: -99 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 2078 max/h 13 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) X-Archive-Number: 201112/142 X-Sequence-Number: 45941 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/21/2011 12:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 19/12/2011 11:04 PM, Rafael Martinez wrote: >> Any ideas about why this dramatic change in memory usage when the only >> thing apparently changed from our side is the postgres version? >> > It'd be interesting to know how much of your workload operates with > SERIALIZABLE transactions, as the behavior of those has changed > significantly in 9.1 and they _are_ more expensive in RAM terms now. > Hello As long as I know, all the databases are using the default, "read committed". We have almost 500 databases across all our servers, but we are only dbas. We provide the infrastructure necessary to run this and help users when they need it but we have not 100% control over how they are using the databases ;-) regards, - -- Rafael Martinez Guerrero Center for Information Technology University of Oslo, Norway PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7yHHAACgkQBhuKQurGihQz1gCdGJY6vk89lHKMldkYlkxOeJYJ GSMAoKDRCRo1UpqlUgItzCm/XV9aCbb8 =7f6R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----