| From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Question on disk contention |
| Date: | 2018-05-31 14:16:23 |
| Message-ID: | DM5PR17MB153291332FB18F815366CCD1DA630@DM5PR17MB1532.namprd17.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Why isn't the OS caching the disk blocks, and why isn't Postgres using the cached data?
It does, but the cache is for each connection/job. They are not shared.
--
Melvin Davidson
Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist
Universe Exploration Command – UXC
Employment by invitation only!
That is simply not true: shared_buffers have this name for a reason. What’s not shared is work_mem used for sorting, etc…
Also OS cache is shared too.
Regards,
Igor Neyman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabio Pardi | 2018-05-31 14:20:31 | Re: Question on disk contention |
| Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2018-05-31 14:09:16 | Re: Question on disk contention |