On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 16:14, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, I did add 1 test that sets work_mem down to 64kB to ensure > the eviction code does get some exercise. You'll notice that I pass > "true" to explain_resultcache() to hide the hits and misses there. We > can't test the exact number of hits/misses/evictions there, but we can > at least tell apart the zero and non-zero by how I coded > explain_resultcache() to replace with Zero or N depending on if the > number was zero or above zero.
Thanks for the explanation. I did realize after replying to Bharat upthread, that I was wrong in assuming that the cache misses and cache hits are always stable for non-parallel scans.
