No. The highmemory usage issueis stll there.
We could change select count(*) to select * or select 1 if you like. Therre is no data in the tables anyway.
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Shianmiin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Merlin,
>
> I revised the test code with attached files and use pgbench to send the test
> queries.
>
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4290723/dotestÂdotest
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4290723/initialize.sql
> initialize.sql
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n4290723/test.sqlÂtest.sql
Not to beat on your test some more, but spamming count(*) is probably
not a good real world indicator of application performance (but it
might be). ÂI'm assuming your memory usage problem has gone away?
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([hidden email])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PostgreSQL-backend-process-high-memory-usage-issue-tp4289407p4290983.html
View this message in context: Re: PostgreSQL backend process high memory usage issue
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
