Re: memory

Tom Allison <tallison@tacocat.net> writes:
> I've a relatively small machine (512MB) that I am setting up as a small area
> database server.  And I was trying to get the memory balanced out for this
> machine.  I don't plan on running anything other than postgresql and whatever
> might be required to operate sanely on the network.

> So I was changing my shared buffers and found I couldn't really get over 3500
> before SHMMAX started complaining.

Well, that's only about 28MB.  A lot of systems have unreasonably small
SHMMAX settings (historical leftover); you might try increasing yours.

If you're running something older than PG 8.1, it's not necessarily
worth your trouble to increase shared_buffers beyond that, but in 8.1
I'd encourage you to try going higher.

> So, I'm trying to understand why I don't have more memory being used
> up by these SQL jobs.  I was assuming that running 100 SQL
> statements/second would suck up a lot of memory.

Not necessarily.  How much data do they touch?

            regards, tom lane