Re: Question about shared_buffer cache behavior - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Rakesh Kumar
Subject Re: Question about shared_buffer cache behavior
Date
Msg-id CAJBB=EVQyyo4E7MU3cJJo4H8A4ToSUBr-ize8UDaGEevDBj5JQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Question about shared_buffer cache behavior  (Paul Jones <pbj@cmicdo.com>)
List 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@cmicdo.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@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Michael Charnoky
Date:
Subject: Re: spurious /dev/shm related errors on insert
Next
From:
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about shared_buffer cache behavior