| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ibrahim Harrani | 2009-01-22 15:47:39 | postgresql 8.3 tps rate |
| Previous Message | Bruno Baguette | 2009-01-22 15:36:31 | Slow HashAggregate : How to optimize ? |