"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issue is summarized like this: the buffer cache in PGSQL is not "scan > resistant" as advertised.
Sure it is. As near as I can tell, your real complaint is that the bufmgr doesn't attempt to limit its usage footprint to fit in L2 cache; which is hardly surprising considering it doesn't know the size of L2 cache. That's not a consideration that we've ever taken into account. I'm also less than convinced that it'd be helpful for a big seqscan: won't reading a new disk page into memory via DMA cause that memory to get flushed from the processor cache anyway? I wonder whether your numbers are explained by some other consideration than you think. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq