Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: caching written values?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Finneid <tfinneid(at)fcon(dot)no>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: caching written values?
Date: 2009-01-22 15:36:37
Message-ID: 603c8f070901220736h3b1136d2n99df01b954e284a0@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> Is that how it works for an index as well? I just found out that I have  an
> index that is 35GB, and the table is 85GB.  ( I will look into the index, it
> works fine, but an index that is almost one third of the size of the table,
> seems a little bit strange. )
> So if it works the same way and the index uses a B-tree, I assume it only
> loads the pages that contains the subpart of the index that are relevant, is
> this correct?

Yes.

See shared_buffers:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/runtime-config-resource.html

...Robert

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ibrahim HarraniDate: 2009-01-22 15:47:39
Subject: postgresql 8.3 tps rate
Previous:From: Bruno BaguetteDate: 2009-01-22 15:36:31
Subject: Slow HashAggregate : How to optimize ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group