Eliott writes:
> So, can anybody confirm that is is normal for a 9.2 based server
> connection to take up 10 times the connection specific memory that 8.3
> used to need?
I'm sure there's been some bloat over time, but I can't offhand think of
a reason for it to be 10X more than 8.3 was. You m
Hi!
I'd like to revisit this issue. What we have noticed that the amount of
memory increase does not really depend on the number of large queries,
but the number of queries in general.
So, can anybody confirm that is is normal for a 9.2 based server
connection to take up 10 times the connect
Hi Jeff!
No, the process that seems to grow indefinitely is postgres process
created for each active connection. The app side is fine.
Altogether we have 50 tables, only two are in the 200 mb range, the rest
is <50mb. While we query one of the big tables constantly (once every
min) but each co
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Eliott wrote:
> Dear Community,
>
> we've recently moved one of our production databases from a 8.3 based
> server to a 9.2 installation. Our usage patterns remained the same,
> however, we noticed that the swap space in the server started to decrease
> with time.
Dear Community,
we've recently moved one of our production databases from a 8.3 based
server to a 9.2 installation. Our usage patterns remained the same,
however, we noticed that the swap space in the server started to
decrease with time.
We have roughly 16 connections to this database in an
