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

Re: Enabling and Disabling Sequencial Scan

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enabling and Disabling Sequencial Scan
Date: 2003-06-02 15:23:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0306020921070.11997-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Robert Creager wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2003 14:46:12 -0600 (MDT)
> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> said something like:
> 
> > 
> > level cache is.  On my machine it's about 800 meg. It's measured in 8k 
> > blocks, so 100,000 * 8k ~ 800 meg.  The smaller this is, the more 
> 
> My 'Cached' usage is 1.7Gb.  I've hit the kernel mailing list, and the 
> one response I got said don't worry about it :-(

Oh, yeah, just a bit on that.  as far as the kernel developers are 
concerned, the buffer / cache is working perfectly, and they're right, it 
is.  What they probably don't understand if your need to tell postgresql 
how much cache/buffer is allocated to it.  

so don't worry about the kernel, the linux kernel really is pretty good at 
caching disk access.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-06-02 16:34:43
Subject: Re: Degrading performance
Previous:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-06-02 15:20:28
Subject: Re: Enabling and Disabling Sequencial Scan

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