Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?

From: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>
To: Sam R(dot) <samruohola(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
Date: 2018-09-19 09:10:52
Message-ID: 5456011537348252@sas1-fed4e4c8a570.qloud-c.yandex.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi

effective_cache_size is not cache. It is just approx value for query planner: how many data can be found in RAM (both in shared_buffers and OS page cache)

> Q: Size of shared_buffers does not matter regarding keeping index in memory?
shared_buffers is cache for both tables and indexes pages. All data in tables and indexes are split to chunks 8 kb each - pages (usually 8kb, it can be redefined during source compilation).
Shared buffers cache is fully automatic, active used pages keeps in memory, lower used pages may be evicted. You can not pin any table or index to shared buffers.

regards, Sergei

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam R. 2018-09-19 09:15:03 Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
Previous Message Sergei Kornilov 2018-09-19 08:42:48 Re: How to see/calculate size of index in memory?