Re: Memory usage during vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Uwe C. Schroeder
Subject Re: Memory usage during vacuum
Date
Msg-id 200403250849.58980.uwe@oss4u.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Memory usage during vacuum  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Memory usage during vacuum
List pgsql-general
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


How about plugging in more memory ?
40MB seems a bit low for a database server footprint - well, certainly depends
on what you do.
But if your machine starts swapping with an extra 40 MB of memory consumption
I'd say the machine is undersized for the application. I usually have around
500 MB free memory with everything running. Memory is cheap nowadays...

On Thursday 25 March 2004 08:15 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shelby Cain <alyandon@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I'm trying to keep postgresql's memory usage
> > under 40 megs under all conditions so that other
> > services/applications don't grind to a halt due to
> > swapping.  Is there any way to achieve my goal?
>
> Don't use VACUUM FULL.  The vacuum_mem setting only limits the space
> consumed by plain VACUUM --- VACUUM FULL needs to keep track of all the
> free space in the table, and will eat as much memory as it has to to do
> that.
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match

- --
    UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC    2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone:  +1 650 872 2425        San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell:   +1 650 302 2405        United States
Fax:    +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAYw22jqGXBvRToM4RAghbAKCbXZ9avDIMwpxOyo3g+iyoTmJNSQCgkk3n
2a8HrY9gxBNMk/2iwLrnHEA=
=TZob
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Gunasekaran Balakrishnan
Date:
Subject: Re: conversion_create.sql (Related to BUG#1072)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bug in delete rule ?