| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |
| Date: | 2011-10-31 14:03:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobvqbypH7w_rJhrbMdrg75+R_uMpHbGBJkqSyrCKOJd1w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
<anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi> wrote:
> Stupid question, but why not keep the whole VM pinned?
It might be that keeping more than one VM page pinned is a good idea,
but we'd have to think carefully about it. For example, if we pin too
many pages in shared_buffers, other queries could start erroring out
for failure to find an evictable buffer.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-31 14:22:36 | Re: Clarification on item on Todo List |
| Previous Message | Anssi Kääriäinen | 2011-10-31 13:51:39 | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |