Re: Slow count(*) again...

On 13/10/10 21:44, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>  On 10/13/2010 3:19 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> I think that major effect you are seeing here is that the UPDATE has
>> made the table twice as big on disk (even after VACUUM etc), and it has
>> gone from fitting in ram to not fitting in ram - so cannot be
>> effectively cached anymore.
>>
> In the real world, tables are larger than the available memory. I have
> tables of several hundred gigabytes in size. Tables shouldn't be
> "effectively cached", the next step would be to measure "buffer cache
> hit ratio", tables should be effectively used.
>
Sorry Mladen,

I didn't mean to suggest that all tables should fit into ram... but was
pointing out (one reason) why Neil would expect to see a different
sequential scan speed after the UPDATE.

I agree that in many interesting cases, tables are bigger than ram [1].

Cheers

Mark

[1] Having said that, these days 64GB of ram is not unusual for a
server... and we have many real customer databases smaller than this
where I work.