On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 12:08 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:43 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > > The other possibility is that Postgres just hasn't even touched a large part > > of its shared buffers. > > > > But then how do you explain the example I gave, with a 5.5GB table > seq-scanned 3 times, shared buffers set to 12 GB, and top still showing > almost 100% memory as cached and no SWAP "used" ? In this case you can't > say postgres didn't touch it's shared buffers - or a sequential scan > won't use the shared buffers ? Well, 6.5GB of shared_buffers could be swapped out and need not be swapped back in to perform those 3 queries. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
