Re: per table random-page-cost?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <cedric(dot)villemain(at)dalibo(dot)com>,"Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "marcin mank" <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: per table random-page-cost?
Date: 2009-10-22 18:41:23
Message-ID: 4AE06103020000250002BDF6@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> There is another use case which perhaps needs to be addressed: if
> the user has some queries which are very latency sensitive and
> others which are not latency sensitive.

Yes. Some products allow you to create a named cache and bind
particular objects to it. This can be used both to keep a large
object with a low cache hit rate from pushing other things out of the
cache or to create a pseudo "memory resident" set of objects by
binding them to a cache which is sized a little bigger than those
objects. I don't know if you have any other suggestions for this
problem, but the named cache idea didn't go over well last time it was
suggested.

In all fairness, PostgreSQL does a good enough job in general that I
haven't missed this feature nearly as much as I thought I would; and
its absence means one less thing to worry about keeping properly
tuned.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-10-22 18:48:46 Re: per table random-page-cost?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-10-22 18:28:44 Re: per table random-page-cost?