"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue is summarized like this: the buffer cache in PGSQL is not "scan
> resistant" as advertised.

Sure it is.  As near as I can tell, your real complaint is that the
bufmgr doesn't attempt to limit its usage footprint to fit in L2 cache;
which is hardly surprising considering it doesn't know the size of L2
cache.  That's not a consideration that we've ever taken into account.

I'm also less than convinced that it'd be helpful for a big seqscan:
won't reading a new disk page into memory via DMA cause that memory to
get flushed from the processor cache anyway?  I wonder whether your
numbers are explained by some other consideration than you think.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to