Re: seq scan cache vs. index cache smackdown

From: "Iain" <iain(at)mst(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: "Postgresql Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Mark Aufflick" <mark(at)pumptheory(dot)com>
Subject: Re: seq scan cache vs. index cache smackdown
Date: 2005-02-15 06:55:02
Message-ID: 001e01c5132b$48efbe40$7201a8c0@mst1x5r347kymb
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi Rod,

> Any solution fixing buffers should probably not take into consideration
> the method being performed (do you really want to skip caching a
> sequential scan of a 2 tuple table because it didn't use an index) but
> the volume of data involved as compared to the size of the cache.

Yes, in fact indexes aren't so different to tables really in that regard.

It sounds like version 8 may help out anyway.

regards
Iain

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2005-02-15 07:07:07 Re: seq scan cache vs. index cache smackdown
Previous Message Iain 2005-02-15 05:58:16 Re: VACCUM FULL ANALYZE PROBLEM