Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From John Beaver
Subject Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes
Date
Msg-id 47FE4259.7030704@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes  (John Beaver <john.e.beaver@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes  (Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Thanks Eric and Gaestano - interesting, and both examples of my naivite. :)<br /><br /> I tried running large
select(*)queries on other tables followed by another try at the offending query, and it was still fast. Just to be
absolutelysure this is a scalable solution, I'll try restarting my computer in a few hours to see if it affects
anythingcache-wise.<br /><br /><br /> Gaetano Mendola wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:47FE3DC7.4010700@gmail.com"
type="cite"><prewrap="">John Beaver wrote:
 
 </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">- Trying the same constant a second time gave an instantaneous result,
I'm guessing because of query/result caching.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
AFAIK no query/result caching is in place in postgres, what you are experiencing
is OS disk/memory caching.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola

 </pre></blockquote>

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: valgog
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance with temporary table
Next
From: Bill Moran
Date:
Subject: Re: large tables and simple "= constant" queries using indexes