Mark Stosberg wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to make sense of the memory usage reported by 'top', compared > to what "pg_database_size" shows. Here's one result:' You are missing the most important parts of the equation: 1. What version of PostgreSQL. 2. What operating system -- scratch , I see freebsd 3. How big is your pg_dump in comparison to the pg_database_size() 4. What type of raid do you have? 5. What is your work_mem set to? 6. What about effective_cache_size? 7. Do you analyze? How often? > > select pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size('production')); > pg_size_pretty > ---------------- > 6573 MB > > Now, looking at memory use with "top", there is a lot memory that isn't > being used on the system: > > Mem: 470M Active, 2064M Inact > > ( 3 Gigs RAM, total ). > > Overall performance is decent, so maybe there's no > problem. However, I wonder if we've under-allocated memory to > PostgreSQL. (This is a dedicated FreeBSD DB server). > > Some memory settings include: > > shared_buffers = 8192 (we have 450 connections) > max_fsm_pages = 1250000 (we kept getting HINTs to bump it, so we did) > > Maybe we should be bumping up the "sort_mem" and "vacuum_mem" as well? > > I do sometimes see sorting and vacuuming as showing up as things I'd > like to run faster. > > This list has been a great resource for performance tuning help, and I > continue to appreciate your help. We've used PostgreSQL on every project > we've had a choice on for the last 10 years. (Has it been that long?!) > We've never regretted it once. > > Mark > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/