Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Mark Pritchard <mark@tangent.net.au>
From: Mark Pritchard <mark@tangent.net.au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-04-18T21:41:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Indeed - I had a delayed post (sent from the wrong email address) which mentioned that the cache is obviously at play here. I still find it amazing that the file system would cache 2gb :) The numbers are definitely correct though...they are actually the second set. I'm running a test with a larger file size to remove the cache effects (having realise that ulimit is the biz). Will post again shortly. Tom - have you had a change to look at the test prg I wrote? Is it working as desired? Cheers, Mark On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 00:56, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com> writes: > > Somethings wrong with the random numbers from the sun... re-run them, > > that first sample is insane.... Caching looks like it's affecctign your > > results alot... > > Yeah; it looks like the test case is not large enough to swamp out > caching effects on the Sun box. It is on the Linux box, evidently, > since the 10:1 ratio appears very repeatable. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >