| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul McGarry <paul(at)paulmcgarry(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shared_buffers advice |
| Date: | 2010-03-16 14:51:11 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e1003160751i43aaa472j4f90c4cf92a1e011@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually, I meant that in the case of a seq scan, PG will try to use just a
> few buffers (a ring) in shared_buffers instead of thrashing the whole
> buffers. But if there was actually a lot of free space in shared_buffers, do
> the pages stay, or do they not ?
They don't. The logic only kicks in if the table is expected to be >
1/4 of shared buffers though.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-03-16 14:53:38 | Re: shared_buffers advice |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-16 14:30:32 | Re: shared_buffers advice |