> >> But then why is it not reporting that in the "Swap: used"
> >> section ? It
> >> only reports 42308k used swap.
> > Hm, good point.
> > The other possibility is that Postgres just hasn't even touched a
> > large part
> > of its shared buffers.
> Sorry for the late reply...
> No, this is on a very active database server; the working set is
> almost certainly larger than memory (probably by a fair margin :( ),
"almost certainly"
> and all of the shared buffers should be in use.
"should be"
It would be better to just check! :) The catalogs and informational
views will give you definitive answers to these quests.
> I'm leaning towards "top on linux == dumb".
I disagree, it just isn't the appropriate tool for the job. What top
tells you is lots of correct information, it just isn't the right
information.
For starters try -
SELECT
'HEAP:' || relname AS table_name,
(heap_blks_read + heap_blks_hit) AS heap_hits,
ROUND(((heap_blks_hit)::NUMERIC / (heap_blks_read + heap_blks_hit) *
100), 2) AS heap_buffer_percentage
FROM pg_statio_user_tables
WHERE (heap_blks_read + heap_blks_hit) > 0
UNION
SELECT
'TOAST:' || relname,
(toast_blks_read + toast_blks_hit),
ROUND(((toast_blks_hit)::NUMERIC / (toast_blks_read + toast_blks_hit) *
100), 2)
FROM pg_statio_user_tables
WHERE (toast_blks_read + toast_blks_hit) > 0
UNION
SELECT
'INDEX:' || relname,
(idx_blks_read + idx_blks_hit) AS heap_hits,
ROUND(((idx_blks_hit)::NUMERIC / (idx_blks_read + idx_blks_hit) * 100),
2)
FROM pg_statio_user_tables
WHERE (idx_blks_read + idx_blks_hit) > 0
--
Adam Tauno Williams, Network & Systems Administrator
Consultant - http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com
Developer - http://www.opengroupware.org