On 28 September 2018 at 16:45, Sam R. wrote:
> That was what I was suspecting a little. Double buffering may not matter in
> our case, because the whole server is meant for PostgreSQL only.
>
> In our case, we can e.g. reserve almost "all memory" for PostgreSQL (shared
> buffers etc.).
>
> Please
Hi!
> The double buffering> itself does not slow anything down.
That was what I was suspecting a little. Double buffering may not matter in our
case, because the whole server is meant for PostgreSQL only.
In our case, we can e.g. reserve almost "all memory" for PostgreSQL (shared
buffers
Hi!
"Index in memory" topic:
After read operation starts,
I think / it seems that a big part of an index gets loaded to memory quite
quickly. A lot of IDs fit to one 8 KB page in PostgreSQL. When reading
operation starts, pages start to be loaded to memory quickly.
So, this "feature" /
Thanks for the comments!
Sam wrote:
>> The data in db table columns is not needed to be kept in memory, only the
>> index. (hash index.)
Jeff Janes wrote:
> This sounds like speculation. Do you have hard evidence that this is
> actually the case?
In our case the "ID" is randomly generated
Sergei wrote:
> You can not pin any table or index to shared buffers.
Thanks, this is answer to my other question!
In our case, this might be an important feature.
(Index in memory, other data / columns not.)
> shared_buffers is cache for both tables and indexes pages.
Ok. So, we should set also
Hi!
Is is possible to force PostgreSQL to keep an index in memory? The data in db
table columns is not needed to be kept in memory, only the index. (hash index.)
It would sound optimal in our scenario.I think Oracle has capability to keep
index in memory (in-memory db functionality). But does
Hi
effective_cache_size is not cache. It is just approx value for query planner:
how many data can be found in RAM (both in shared_buffers and OS page cache)
> Q: Size of shared_buffers does not matter regarding keeping index in memory?
shared_buffers is cache for both tables and indexes pages.
Hi!
Related to my other email (size of index in memory),
Other questions,
Q: To keep _index(es)_ in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
Q: Size of shared_buffers does not matter regarding keeping index in memory?
Or have I missed something, does it matter (to keep indexes in
