Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2Y1S-0007w8-00 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:39:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2Y1Q-000105-5T for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:39:44 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2Y1P-0000zy-Qy for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:39:43 +0000 Received: from sonic309-40.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com ([74.6.129.214]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2Y1M-0003EB-EM for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:39:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1537346379; bh=6kheJrVLJDK62ZID9wzMUQuvTbiFAE2IGzDa24IbcTw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:References:From:Subject; b=GNp/zixJbOnBkaH8qY11KdEES2/vQRR8vcQHhZD2bDbD5D/IW6thL/HW3HjmUR9YVhBZblYPl2NgZbWDjfgaN8pWsTwYiPiI4NtYXBEWN+tDMj0NhOqad7RSKicue2A552Iq0TFRL34qqPL/2Dh9P8MwPAL+8IVj9fcS20VmvwxPqVy5g7/VFXinCxmwqUT21i1wLxYyzVgus0mtcTO5WleAAN0TELJpWjdrinpjLn00i7GEIitb5TlFGJX8hbtwSK8DSyS3IiQWZXUfAGAXGS55TfNAgBZWRgBz3/Lgn+ZwhtyyQGcz9g2lVYceuOl3Vc9xeoxyVp5Mj03PYRx3BQ== X-YMail-OSG: siebg_QVM1nqygU6VuEHkv8OqSTBLqo8qLPb3O_ia.xmfIjUh6fjmRLM.jYVGgJ YHVFhJ0PPoShmN1WNfkitPWih3ZADqefvB.UbVFgxDHJrr3qz0JwMvThqzCB1WX0VLqrniSo0vAV WzFnb4UQ2yWW6azXTQreVGngh3CmuQNsRj2c.hSi9RXV0DcEi6MnI7a2s4TJ7QksejJXqpvmPQ5u Rq1f0pnpKzy_7ETvLoFCLgk.Jf7kEh_b.FTFksfoU_8shvjpn1w75a65xu2OvrTXrQdaBzaLGwFs zClDD.T29sWV1qQ69kbgof3od_GiZ4UmxcHvwJLl06ilGgu7mSQkotxwq5J_iAjNBOBtjOkUnVfv kaxbH5w.BdMXKgWGw0HPYUoPzqAk1sp6W_ocQzG9NYlCNA4wrxEEBGVbTCgsCrLWHQxsIMWNxy__ 6mzqI57ieBWu_RrPXXkeV8gSfD5Qchjh3hSAO2eSV.BKDQiY0g3Ope.c20jPh5FFGUZKpJ82onny WlT2jeutudjIz_ByPJuilZwoppKb9UZkOSPe51MPwQ.T0hadv6igN60EKpLM4sUy3E89Ww7q4RQe ob1_ALiw_sFGo22KjZedIo0BIJB4aadaq1NYIVz_JEM5aE1QIxoZSD48zX0ddsDDcfKn7ls8C_WK OOh.C4xM9gtVzCHnYx8DpsUGyNJExe0cnFmaGmGCrIZpnsIjleFls4GDQdYlGi6ffGoTXuqEAOfx _5aK9Wp0if7Q_tQ.GqjcWErZ3X7l8bBeAXEMNkSApUf.I4xiDWgPY8K1Cc_ahdQuleuz.BfSNrSc kGudjGYumEvanrCrCbliSY54aDS_lY8q0JZejZw62.T9ePiq89tfa0O.U7rGFl3DfbsSZAINAGw7 lJGco605h35GLxVkRycHAXUNv5EgeAgEYHQyR5fX1nb7IF3qMAdTAJpJOVF39dbpjzt6p36_SpJW 84Re_2ejNMQPh4A-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic309.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:39:39 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:35:38 +0000 (UTC) From: "Sam R." Reply-To: "Sam R." To: "pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org" Message-ID: <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600@mail.yahoo.com> Subject: To keep indexes in memory, is large enough effective_cache_size enough? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5650981_365715538.1537346138598" References: <1321418371.5650982.1537346138600.ref@mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.12406 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 Content-Length: 2439 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk ------=_Part_5650981_365715538.1537346138598 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ------=_Part_5650981_365715538.1537346138598 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
H= i!

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 index= es: very large amount of data in db tables, but (e.g. hash) indexes could b= e kept in memory.

I am using PostgreSQL 10. I could s= tart to use PostgreSQL 11, after it has been released.

Best Regards, Sam
------=_Part_5650981_365715538.1537346138598--