On 19/12/2011 11:04 PM, Rafael Martinez wrote:
Any ideas about why this dramatic change in memory usage when the only
thing apparently changed from our side is the postgres version?
It'd be interesting to know how much of your workload operates with
SERIALIZABLE transactions, as the behavior of
nabble.30.miller_2...@spamgourmet.com writes:
> I've run EXPLAIN on the query, but AFAICS the query plan does not
> appear significantly different than the abridged version for this
> particular query (output attached below).
I think what's happening is that you've got the hashed NOT IN being
push
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Scott Marlowe -
scott.marl...@gmail.com
<+nabble+miller_2555+3b65e832a3.scott.marlowe#gmail@spamgourmet.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:52 AM,
> wrote:
> > I can probably fix by making the following sysctl adjustments:
> > vm.overcommit_memory =
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:52 AM, wrote:
> Under steady-state conditions, the following shows the virtual memory size
> for postgres backend processes:
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 8506 postgres 20 0 2327m 3084 1792 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.33 postgr
Le 19 décembre 2011 16:04, Rafael Martinez a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello
>
> I am sending this email to ask if anyone has noticed a change in how
> a server running postgreSQL 9.1 uses and allocates memory compared to
> older versions.
>
> We upgraded all ou
