"Carlos Moreno" <moreno_pg(at)mochima(dot)com> writes:
> I'm now thinking that the problem with my logic is that the system does
> not keep anything in memory (or not all tuples, in any case), since it
> is only counting, so it does not *have to* keep them
That's really not how it works. When Postgres talks to the OS they're just
bits. There's no cache of rows or values or anything higher level than bits.
Neither the OS's filesystem cache nor the Postgres shared memory knows the
difference between live or dead rows or even pages that don't contain any
> and since the total amount of reading from the disk exceeds the amount of
> physical memory, then the valid tuples are "pushed out" of memory.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ow Mun Heng||Date: 2007-09-24 06:46:16|
|Subject: Re: REPOST: Nested loops row estimates always too high|
|Previous:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2007-09-23 22:29:02|
|Subject: Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performance deterioration?|