Re: shared_buffer value
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: shared_buffer value |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25927.1074214315@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | shared_buffer value ("Anjan Dave" <adave@vantage.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
"Anjan Dave" <adave@vantage.com> writes: > Question is, does the 80MB buffer allocation correspond to ~87MB per > postmaster instance? (with about 100 instances of postmaster, that will > be about 100 x 80MB =3D 8GB??) Most likely, top is counting some portion of the shared memory block against each backend process. This behavior is platform-specific, however, and you did not tell us what platform you're on. > Interestingly, at one point, we vacuumed the database, and the size > reported by 'df -k' on the pgsql slice dropped very > significantly...guess, it had been using a lot of temp files? "At one point"? If your setup doesn't include *routine* vacuuming, you are going to have problems with file bloat. This isn't something you can do just when you happen to remember it --- it needs to be driven off a cron job or some such. Or use the contrib autovacuum daemon. You want to vacuum often enough to keep the database size more or less constant. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: