Yeah definitely not staying resident once read, although the machine does gave 256GB of memory so some will persist in the OS cache.
Actually this brings up another question, if I have an unique integer index of 2.gb what percentage would I expect to read for a value that was higher or lower than all index values? Cheers, James On Monday, 19 January 2015, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > On 1/18/2015 11:13 PM, James Sewell wrote: > >> >> Each index is about 2.5GB, I suspect I am trying to read a these into >> memory in entirety. >> > > an 11GB table with a (presumably integer) primary key requires an 2.5GB > index ? 100 of these would need 250GB of shared_buffers to stay > resident, not likely. > > > > > > -- > john r pierce 37N 122W > somewhere on the middle of the left coast > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- James Sewell, PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect ______________________________________ Level 2, 50 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000 *P *(+61) 3 8370 8000 *W* www.lisasoft.com *F *(+61) 3 8370 8099 -- ------------------------------ The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.
