2015-09-09 17:06 GMT+02:00 Pavel Suderevsky :
> Laurenz, Merlin,
>
> Thanks a lot for your explanations.
>
> >Even if postgres does not cache the table, the o/s will probably
> > still cache it assuming it has the memory to do so.
>
> Could you please clarify, do I understand right that there are
Laurenz, Merlin,
Thanks a lot for your explanations.
>Even if postgres does not cache the table, the o/s will probably
> still cache it assuming it has the memory to do so.
Could you please clarify, do I understand right that there are no way to
determine with 'explain' whether postgres applies
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Pavel Suderevsky wrote:
>> When I have been passing through "Understanding explain" manual
>> (http://www.dalibo.org/_media/understanding_explain.pdf)
>> I've faced some strange situation when table with size of 65MB completely
>> placed in c
Pavel Suderevsky wrote:
> When I have been passing through "Understanding explain" manual
> (http://www.dalibo.org/_media/understanding_explain.pdf)
> I've faced some strange situation when table with size of 65MB completely
> placed in cache with shared_buffers=320MB and it doesn't with shared_b
Hi,
When I have been passing through "Understanding explain" manual (
http://www.dalibo.org/_media/understanding_explain.pdf) I've faced some
strange situation when table with size of 65MB completely placed in cache
with shared_buffers=320MB and it doesn't with shared_buffers <= 256MB.
Actually be
