Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Doug Rady <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Sherry Moore <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Date: 2007-03-05 22:19:58
Message-ID: 23504.1173133198@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> Elapsed time is exactly the same (101 s). Is is expected that HEAD would
> behave differently?

Offhand I don't think so. But what I wanted to see was the curve of
elapsed time vs shared_buffers?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-03-05 22:32:18 Re: proposal: custom variables management
Previous Message Mike Rylander 2007-03-05 22:18:51 xml2 contrib patch supporting default XML namespaces