On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 10:43 +0200, Gael Le Mignot wrote:
> Hello Guillaume!
>
> Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:33:03 +0200, you wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 09:25 +0200, Gael Le Mignot wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> We are running a PostgreSQL 8.4 database, with two tables containing a
> >> lot (> 1 million) moderatly small rows. It contains some btree indexes,
> >> and one of the two tables contains a gin full-text index.
> >>
> >> We noticed that the autovacuum process tend to use a lot of memory,
> >> bumping the postgres process near 1Gb while it's running.
> >>
>
> > Well, it could be its own memory (see maintenance_work_mem), or shared
> > memory. So, it's hard to say if it's really an issue or not.
>
> > BTW, how much memory do you have on this server? what values are used
> > for shared_buffers and maintenance_work_mem?
>
> maintenance_work_mem is at 16Mb, shared_buffers at 24Mb.
>
IOW, default values.
> The server currently has 2Gb, we'll add more to it (it's a VM), but we
> would like to be able to make an estimate on how much memory it'll need
> for a given rate of INSERT into the table, so we can estimate future
> costs.
>
> >> I looked in the documentations, but I didn't find the information : do
> >> you know how to estimate the memory required for the autovacuum if we
> >> increase the number of rows ? Is it linear ? Logarithmic ?
> >>
>
> > It should use up to maintenance_work_mem. Depends on how much memory you
> > set on this parameter.
>
> So, it shouldn't depend on data size ?
Nope, it shouldn't.
> Is there a fixed multiplicative
> factor between maintenance_work_mem and the memory actually used ?
>
1 :)
> >> Also, is there a way to reduce that memory usage ?
>
> > Reduce maintenance_work_mem. Of course, if you do that, VACUUM could
> > take a lot longer to execute.
>
> >> Would running the autovacuum more frequently lower its memory usage ?
> >>
>
> > Yes.
>
> Thanks, we'll try that.
>
I don't quite understand how you can get up to 1GB used by your process.
According to your configuration, and unless I'm wrong, it shouldn't take
more than 40MB. Perhaps a bit more, but not 1GB. So, how did you find
this number?
--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
