> >> But then why is it not reporting that in the "Swap: used" > >> section ? It > >> only reports 42308k used swap. > > Hm, good point. > > The other possibility is that Postgres just hasn't even touched a > > large part > > of its shared buffers. > Sorry for the late reply... > No, this is on a very active database server; the working set is > almost certainly larger than memory (probably by a fair margin :( ), "almost certainly" > and all of the shared buffers should be in use. "should be" It would be better to just check! :) The catalogs and informational views will give you definitive answers to these quests. > I'm leaning towards "top on linux == dumb". I disagree, it just isn't the appropriate tool for the job. What top tells you is lots of correct information, it just isn't the right information. For starters try - SELECT 'HEAP:' || relname AS table_name, (heap_blks_read + heap_blks_hit) AS heap_hits, ROUND(((heap_blks_hit)::NUMERIC / (heap_blks_read + heap_blks_hit) * 100), 2) AS heap_buffer_percentage FROM pg_statio_user_tables WHERE (heap_blks_read + heap_blks_hit) > 0 UNION SELECT 'TOAST:' || relname, (toast_blks_read + toast_blks_hit), ROUND(((toast_blks_hit)::NUMERIC / (toast_blks_read + toast_blks_hit) * 100), 2) FROM pg_statio_user_tables WHERE (toast_blks_read + toast_blks_hit) > 0 UNION SELECT 'INDEX:' || relname, (idx_blks_read + idx_blks_hit) AS heap_hits, ROUND(((idx_blks_hit)::NUMERIC / (idx_blks_read + idx_blks_hit) * 100), 2) FROM pg_statio_user_tables WHERE (idx_blks_read + idx_blks_hit) > 0 -- Adam Tauno Williams, Network & Systems Administrator Consultant - http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com Developer - http://www.opengroupware.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
