| From: | "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Calculation of a shared memory |
| Date: | 2007-11-02 03:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | 0bc301c81cfe$9ce67900$c601a8c0@HP22720319231 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi.
Thanks!
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>> I think it is a permissible range. Thanks!
>
> Most of the remaining discrepancy is because you did not account for the
> per-shared-buffer management overhead. The table shows shared_buffers
> as costing 8300 bytes each, not 8192.
Oops, I did the misapprehension by the alteration of MB and kB.
This estimates the value secured more correctly.
40*(1800+270*64)= 763200
5*(700+270*64)= 89900
28MB*1024/8*8300= 29747200
64kB/8*8200= 65600
1000*70= 70000
179200*6= 1075200
700kB= 716800
Total :32527900
ipcs-m:32571392
-43492
Does this suit?
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-11-02 09:13:44 | Proposal: Select ... AS OF Savepoint |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-02 02:34:17 | Re: Calculation of a shared memory |