From: | Mark Pritchard <mark(at)tangent(dot)net(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>, Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
Date: | 2002-04-18 21:41:47 |
Message-ID: | 1019166108.25576.130.camel@set.tangent.net.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Indeed - I had a delayed post (sent from the wrong email address) which
mentioned that the cache is obviously at play here. I still find it
amazing that the file system would cache 2gb :) The numbers are
definitely correct though...they are actually the second set.
I'm running a test with a larger file size to remove the cache effects
(having realise that ulimit is the biz). Will post again shortly.
Tom - have you had a change to look at the test prg I wrote? Is it
working as desired?
Cheers,
Mark
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 00:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> writes:
> > Somethings wrong with the random numbers from the sun... re-run them,
> > that first sample is insane.... Caching looks like it's affecctign your
> > results alot...
>
> Yeah; it looks like the test case is not large enough to swamp out
> caching effects on the Sun box. It is on the Linux box, evidently,
> since the 10:1 ratio appears very repeatable.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-04-18 22:29:25 | Re: Names of view select rules |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-18 20:20:36 | Names of view select rules |