On 14 November 2012 06:47, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, it's absurd that it's so hard to work out how much memory Pg uses. It'd
be nice if Pg provided better tools for this by allowing the postmaster to
interrogate backends' memory contexts, though that'd only report how much
Please reply to the list, not directly to me. Comments follow in-line.
On 11/13/2012 11:37 PM, Wu Ming wrote:
Hi,
What column in Process Explorer to determine memory usage? Currently I
thought Working Set is the correct one.
As I said, it just isn't that simple when shared memory is involved.
Hi,
As I said, it just isn't that simple when shared memory is involved. A
rough measure for PostgreSQL is the virtual size of one of the
processes, plus the working sets of all the others. Alternately, you can
reasonably estimate the memory consumption by adding all the working
sets and
On 11/14/2012 01:56 PM, Wu Ming wrote:
This is interesting. About the virtual size of one of the process,
which process I should look up? Is the one who has the biggest virtual
size?
Thinking about this some more, I haven't checked to see if Windows adds
dirtied shared_buffers to the
Wu Ming wrote:
I had installed postgreSQL v9.2 in Windows XP SP3.
My PC specs:
Processor: Pentium Dual Core 2.09 GHz
RAM: 2GB
The postgreSQL is run as windows service (manual).
The problem is the postgreSQL service uses a lot of memory and lags
the OS if running in long time (about 2
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Wu Ming rdyf4e...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I had installed postgreSQL v9.2 in Windows XP SP3.
My PC specs:
Processor: Pentium Dual Core 2.09 GHz
RAM: 2GB
The postgreSQL is run as windows service (manual).
The problem is the postgreSQL service uses a lot of
On 11/12/2012 10:17 PM, Wu Ming wrote:
See this screenshot link from the Process Explorer:
http://i45.tinypic.com/vr4t3b.png
That looks pretty reasonable to me.
The virtual size includes the shared memory segment, so the
per-process use is actually much lower than it looks. The real use will
