On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Done with attached patch; good idea.
Bruce,
You are a documentation-tuning machine... thanks.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.o
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/monitoring-stats.html
> >> says: "Note: blocks_fetched minus blocks_hit gives the number of
> >> kernel read() calls issued for the table, index, or da
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/monitoring-stats.html
> > says: "Note: blocks_fetched minus blocks_hit gives the number of
> > kernel read() calls issued for the table, index, or database; but the
> > actual number of physical reads is usua
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/monitoring-stats.html
>> says: "Note: blocks_fetched minus blocks_hit gives the number of
>> kernel read() calls issued for the table, index, or database; but the
>> actual num
Robert Haas writes:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/monitoring-stats.html
> says: "Note: blocks_fetched minus blocks_hit gives the number of
> kernel read() calls issued for the table, index, or database; but the
> actual number of physical reads is usually lower due to kernel-le
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/monitoring-stats.html
says: "Note: blocks_fetched minus blocks_hit gives the number of
kernel read() calls issued for the table, index, or database; but the
actual number of physical reads is usually lower due to kernel-level
buffering." This seems t
