On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 11:11 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:08 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 15:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> > > > Why do the first and the twentieth executions of the query have almost
> > > > identical "buffers shared/read" numbers? That seems odd.
> > >
> > > It's repeat execution of the same query, so that doesn't seem odd to me.
> >
> > Really? Shouldn't the blocks be in shared buffers after a couple
> > of executions?
>
> If it is doing a seq scan (I don't know if it is) they intentionally use a
> small ring buffer to, so they evict their own recently used blocks, rather
> than evicting other people's blocks. So these blocks won't build up in
> shared_buffers very rapidly just on the basis of repeated seq scans.
Sure, but according to the execution plans it is doing a Parallel Index Only Scan.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com