From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: Chris Faulkner <chrisf@oramap.com>
Cc: Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: sql performance and cache
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:16:35 +0800
Message-ID: <3F87D883.2000206@familyhealth.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F87D764.8030306@familyhealth.com.au>
References: <DGENKIKMJILAAKJGFHKFEEKECIAA.chrisf@oramap.com>
<3F87D764.8030306@familyhealth.com.au>
> PostgreSQL does not have, and has never had a query cache - so nothing
> you do is going to make that second query faster.
Let me clarify that. PostgreSQL will of course cache the disk pages
used in getting the data for your query, which is why the second time
you run it, it is 3 seconds faster.
However, it does not cache the _results_ of the query. Each time you
run it, it will be fully re-evaluated.
The btree error you give is bad and I'm sure the more experienced list
members will want you to dig into it for them.
Chris
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: chriskl@familyhealth.com.au, chrisf@oramap.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: sql performance and cache
In-Reply-To: <3F87D883.2000206@familyhealth.com.au>
* 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