> I think that most of the arguments in this thread drastically > overestimate the precision and the effect of effective_cache_size. The > planner logic behind it basically only uses it to calculate things > within a single index scan. That alone shows that any precise > calculation cannot be very meaningful. > It also does *NOT* directly influence how the kernel caches disk > io. It's there to guess how likely it is something is still cached when > accessing things repeatedly.
Agreed. I think we should take the patch as-is, and spend the rest of the 9.4 dev cycle arguing about 3x vs. 4x. ;-) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
