Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> At 17:49 24/04/98 -0500, John Fieber wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Alex Belits wrote:
> >
> >> > Also, total memory usage is not simply usage of one invocation
> >> > times the number of invocations. With a decent virtual memory
> >> > system, all invocations share memory for the text segment which
> >> > is over a megabyte for postgres. So, subtract (N-1) x 1MB from
> >> > your total.
> >>
> >> Database servers have large amount of data in their processes, so they
> >> still will have to allocate it separately, even though they handle the
> >> same database.
> >
> >Certainly. I was just pointing ou a potential memory use
> >miscalculation on the order of 1MB per process (the text size of
> >postgres), which is not exactly trivial.
>
> I might be missing something, but idle processes of an SQL server should
> take virtually no memory. The code image is shared, the read-only data is
> shared, and the only memory that's not shared is the memory taken for
> process specific stuff, mainly memory needed during the processing of a
> query. That memory will be freed as soon as the query is done, so it
> doesn't really matter.
> Again, I don't know if there might be some Postgres specific issues
> involved, but I've had a MySQL server with 150 threads taking all around
> 5MB (while processing some queries, too).
Is there a method of getting under Linux o.s. the *real* ammount of
memory that all postgres process use overall ?
I would inform you then how much memory will eat those processes and if
there is too big, I'll inform also PostgreSQL developers about it.
--
Constantin Teodorescu
FLEX Consulting Braila, ROMANIA
