Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_sizeenough? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Sam R.
Subject Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_sizeenough?
Date
Msg-id 1476619436.6435500.1537348704720@mail.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?  (Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>)
Responses Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
List pgsql-performance
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 shared_buffers big.

BR Sam


On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 12:10 PM, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org> wrote:


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. All data in tables and indexes are split to chunks 8 kb each - pages (usually 8kb, it can be redefined during source compilation).
Shared buffers cache is fully automatic, active used pages keeps in memory, lower used pages may be evicted. You can not pin any table or index to shared buffers.

regards, Sergei



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Sam R."
Date:
Subject: Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_sizeenough?
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?