| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shujie Shang <sshang(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index Only Scan vs Cache |
| Date: | 2015-07-14 10:03:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAtWmc7aw2GHTuzx7kBho0GToWCAXENUm-k9x-em1Xf=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2015-07-14 11:59 GMT+02:00 Shujie Shang <sshang(at)pivotal(dot)io>:
> Does PG has its own data cache? I don't think so.
>
PG has own data cache - see shared_buffers
Regards
Pavel
> I think PG just using the filesystem cache.
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/9/2015 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> writes:
>>>
>>>> My question is: Will PG cache only the index (assuming it can always do
>>>> an Index Only Scan), or will it cache the table as well?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The table blocks would fall out of cache if they're never touched.
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sweet! Thanks Tom.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ramesh T | 2015-07-14 10:53:08 | Re: timestamp check |
| Previous Message | Shujie Shang | 2015-07-14 09:59:32 | Re: Index Only Scan vs Cache |