Ben Chobot wrote:
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
non-unique indices which supposedly have never been used. As I understand
Greg Smith wrote:
Ben Chobot wrote:
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
non-unique indices which supposedly have never been used. As I
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
BTW the only reason you don't see buffers having a larger usage is
that the counters are capped at that value.
Right, the usage count is limited to 5 for no reason besides that seems
like a good number. We keep hoping to come across a data set and
application with a
On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
BTW the only reason you don't see buffers having a larger usage is
that the counters are capped at that value.
Right, the usage count is limited to 5 for no reason besides that seems like
a good number. We keep
I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
non-unique indices which supposedly have never been used. As I understand
things, that shouldn't happen. Am I missing something?
--
Sent via
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
non-unique indices which supposedly have never been used. As I understand
things, that shouldn't
