On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:20:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it'd be better to attack this problem from the "other side";
> > namely looking at what's actually cached.
>
> You can kiss goodbye to plan stability if you go that route... and
> in
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it'd be better to attack this problem from the "other side";
> namely looking at what's actually cached.
You can kiss goodbye to plan stability if you go that route... and
in any case I doubt the assumption that what's in shared buffers is
repre
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 04:18:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * table and index. (Ideally other_pages should include all the other
> * tables and indexes used by the query too; but we don't have a good way
> * to get that number here.)
>
> A first-order approximation to this would be to add up t
