On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 11:00, Manuel Trujillo wrote: > El jue, 24-01-2002 a las 09:27, Luis Amigo escribió: > > On my own experience I will tell you that if you're able to force postgres > > to keep all database in memory it will be very fast, so memory only depends > > on your > > database size. > > Each backend may run on a different processor, so the more processors u > > have the more backends u can run at once > > hope it helps > > Yes, but... How can I know the exact size of my database? And, if I > compile the postgresql under four processors, don't work like (or in a) > SMP, distributing the charge into the four processors??
First off, you could do a "du -h" in the data sub-directory in your postgresql installation, to get an ideea about how large it is. Even better, you could do a select count(*) from table1; and repeat this in order to get the number of rows you have in each table in your database. You can also get the size of a row in a table. Obviously, you can multiply the n_rows with the row_width and get the approx. size of a table. So there you go. But do add space for the indexes, the sequences and the pg_ tables. This sould be more accurate, but for a gross (and faster) estimation use "du -h ." Hope that helps. Make sure the amount of shram you get thru your kernel is enough, but not large enough to prevent everything else run :-) -- Radu-Adrian Popescu CSA, DBA, Programmer ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
