| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum thoughts |
| Date: | 2003-10-31 23:48:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1067644108.372.23.camel@tokyo |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 15:31, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Well, "partial solution" isn't quite what I would call it, and it surely
> needs integration with sequential scans. I really do expect the whole
> hack to fall apart if some concurrent seqscans are going on
I'd rather see us implement a buffer replacement policy that considers
both frequency + recency (unlike LRU, which considers only recency).
Ideally, that would work "automagically". I'm hoping to get a chance to
implement ARC[1] during the 7.5 cycle.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | markw | 2003-11-01 00:18:19 | OSDL DBT-2 w/ PostgreSQL 7.3.4 and 7.4beta5 |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-10-31 23:27:02 | Re: 7.4RC1 planned for Monday |