On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> BTW the only reason you don't see buffers having a larger "usage" is
>> that the counters are capped at that value.
>>
>
> Right, the usage count is limited to 5 for no reason besides "that seems like
> a good number".
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
BTW the only reason you don't see buffers having a larger "usage" is
that the counters are capped at that value.
Right, the usage count is limited to 5 for no reason besides "that seems
like a good number". We keep hoping to come across a data set and
application wit
Greg Smith wrote:
> Ben Chobot wrote:
> >On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
> >
> >>I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
> >>confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
> >>non-unique indices which supposedly have never bee
Ben Chobot wrote:
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
non-unique indices which supposedly have never been used. As I understand
things,
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Ben Chobot wrote:
> I'm looking at the usage count column of pg_buffercache's info, and I'm
> confused. Several buffers that supposed have LRU values of 5 belong to
> non-unique indices which supposedly have never been used. As I understand
> things, that shouldn't
