| From: | John Beaver <john(dot)e(dot)beaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes |
| Date: | 2008-04-10 16:37:45 |
| Message-ID: | 47FE4259.7030704@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Thanks Eric and Gaestano - interesting, and both examples of my
naivite. :)<br>
<br>
I tried running large select(*) queries on other tables followed by
another try at the offending query, and it was still fast. Just to be
absolutely sure this is a scalable solution, I'll try restarting my
computer in a few hours to see if it affects anything cache-wise.<br>
<br>
<br>
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47FE3DC7(dot)4010700(at)gmail(dot)com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">John Beaver wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Trying the same constant a second time gave an instantaneous result,
I'm guessing because of query/result caching.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
AFAIK no query/result caching is in place in postgres, what you are experiencing
is OS disk/memory caching.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| unknown_filename | text/html | 1.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2008-04-10 17:08:54 | Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2008-04-10 16:18:15 | Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes |