* Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> [090925 11:57]:
> That won't work well anyway because the postgres shared_buffers dos not cache things that are sequentially scanned (it uses a ring buffer for each scan). So, for any data that is only accessed by sequential scan, you're relying on the OS and the disks. If you access a table via index scan though, all its pages will go through shared_buffers.
In older version too, or only since synchronized scans got in?
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Josh Kupershmidt||Date: 2009-09-25 21:22:41|
|Subject: Re: Regarding Sequential Scans count increase each time we press refresh .|
|Previous:||From: Scott Carey||Date: 2009-09-25 15:53:00|
|Subject: Re: PG 8.3 and large shared buffer settings|