| From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | F Harvell <fharvell(at)fts(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Again, sorry, caching. |
| Date: | 2002-03-20 01:42:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3C97E923.DBF487F5@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 19:20, F Harvell wrote:
> > I feel that the caching should be SQL transparent. If it is
> > implemented reasonably well, the performance gain should be pretty
> > much universal.
>
> Well, the simple query cache scheme that is currently being proposed
> would use a byte-by-byte comparison of the incoming query. I think the
> consensus is that for a lot of workloads, this would be a bad idea.
And this is what I have been trying to argue. Many SQL deployments execute a
set of hard coded queries as the majority of the work load. The dynamic
queries, obviously, will not be cached, but the vast majority of work will come
out of the cache.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-03-20 02:40:25 | Re: Again, sorry, caching. |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-03-20 01:28:19 | Re: Again, sorry, caching. |