> From: Greg Smith [mailto:gsmith@gregsmith.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:03 PM
>
> So, yes, in 8.3 it's possible that you can have sequential
> scans of large
> tables or the VACUUM data pass through the buffer cache, but
> not remain in
> it afterwards. I didn't think George would ever run into this in the
> specific example he asked about because of (1). This
> behavior only kicks
> in if you're scanning a table large relative to the total
> shared buffer
> cache and that didn't seem like an issue in his case.
Correct -- the tables in this example were tiny, shared buffers are
large, and, in any case, I am still on 8.1...
George