From: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464a3(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Jones <pbj(at)cmicdo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Question about shared_buffer cache behavior |
Date: | 2016-03-18 21:04:47 |
Message-ID: | CAJBB=EVQyyo4E7MU3cJJo4H8A4ToSUBr-ize8UDaGEevDBj5JQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
PG loads data at the block level to shared_buffers. Most likely it is
because the second sql selects different set of rows (from different
blocks) than the first sql.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Paul Jones <pbj(at)cmicdo(dot)com> wrote:
> In Postgres 9.5.1 with a shared_buffer cache of 7Gb, a SELECT from
> a single table that uses an index appears to read the table into the
> shared_buffer cache. Then, as many times as the exact same SELECT is
> repeated in the same session, it runs blazingly fast and doesn't even
> touch the disk. All good.
>
> Now, in the *same* session, if a different SELECT from the *same* table,
> using the *same* index is run, it appears to read the entire table from
> disk again.
>
> Why is this? Is there something about the query that qualifies the
> contents of the share_buffer cache? Would this act differently for
> different kinds of indexes?
>
> PJ
>
>
> --
> 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 | pbj | 2016-03-18 21:22:58 | Re: Question about shared_buffer cache behavior |
Previous Message | Michael Charnoky | 2016-03-18 20:54:52 | Re: spurious /dev/shm related errors on insert |