On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:43 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> The other possibility is that Postgres just hasn't even touched a large part
> of its shared buffers.
>
But then how do you explain the example I gave, with a 5.5GB table
seq-scanned 3 times, shared buffers set to 12 GB, and top still showing
almost 100% memory as cached and no SWAP "used" ? In this case you can't
say postgres didn't touch it's shared buffers - or a sequential scan
won't use the shared buffers ?
Cheers,
Csaba.
