From: Sam R. <samruohola@yahoo.com>
To: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:35:38 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600@mail.yahoo.com> (raw)
References: <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
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 memory)?
Background info: I have plans to use hash indexes: very large amount of data in db tables, but (e.g. hash) indexes could be kept in memory.
I am using PostgreSQL 10. I could start to use PostgreSQL 11, after it has been released.
Best Regards, Sam
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: samruohola@yahoo.com, pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough?
In-Reply-To: <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600@mail.yahoo.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox