| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dan Sugalski <dan(at)sidhe(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 8.3 and large shared buffer settings |
| Date: | 2009-09-25 16:15:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20090925161542.GK586@oak.highrise.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
* 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?
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2009-09-25 21:22:41 | Re: Regarding Sequential Scans count increase each time we press refresh . |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-09-25 15:53:00 | Re: PG 8.3 and large shared buffer settings |