Skip to main content
Database Administrators

Return to Answer

added 29 characters in body
Source Link
András Váczi
András Váczi
  • 31.6k
  • 13
  • 101
  • 149
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this onethis one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
replaced http://dba.stackexchange.com/ with https://dba.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answeranswer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
linking Greg's answer
Source Link
András Váczi
András Váczi
  • 31.6k
  • 13
  • 101
  • 149
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one. However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
  1. This is quite obvious, but the results for (5) also show that answer is YES
  2. I am yet to set up a good example for this, for now it is more yes than no :) (See my edit below, the answer is NO.)
  3. Since the planner is who decides whether to use an index or not, we can say YES, it decides caching (but this is more complicated)
  4. The exact details of caching could be derived from the source code, I couldn't find too much on this topic, except this one (see the author's answer, too). However, I'm pretty sure that this again is far more complicated than a simple yes or no. (Again, from my edit you can get some idea - since the cache size is limited, those 'sensible' indexes compete for available space. If they are too many, they will kick each other from cache - so the answer is rather NO.)
  5. As a simple query with pg_buffercache shows, the answer is a definitive YES. It is worth to note that temporary table data don't get cached here.
adding a small test to play with and drawing conclusions
Source Link
András Váczi
András Váczi
  • 31.6k
  • 13
  • 101
  • 149
adding a small test to play with
Source Link
András Váczi
András Váczi
  • 31.6k
  • 13
  • 101
  • 149
Source Link
András Váczi
András Váczi
  • 31.6k
  • 13
  • 101
  • 149