Re: question about index cost estimates

Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> On the postgres side, what if you actually made the cache _smaller_,
> only caching important stuff like system tables or indexes. You yourself
> said it doesn't matter if you get it from the cache or the kernel, so
> why not let the kernel do it and prevent double buffering?

In fact I don't think it's productive to use an extremely large -B
setting. This is something that easily could be settled by experiment
--- do people actually see any significant improvement in performance
from increasing -B above, say, a few hundred?

regards, tom lane