Re: PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., was Re: PostgreSQL is much

[sNip]
>> the difference is that with mysql, nothing pushes the table out of
>> memory; it always stays in memory. in postgresql, a big query on
>> another tables, or perhaps a vacuum, or other highly active
>> applications on the same server can cause the small tables to be pushed
>> out of memory. both approches have positives and negatives, and in
>> many cases you would probably notice no differance
>
> If this is a small heavily used table, 7.5 with the new ARC buffer
> management policy should do much better. Even better, the table does
> not actually need to be small: the heavily used portion will stay in
> memory where it can be very fast, and the rest will be just wait its
> turn on disk.

Is this a configurable option by any chance? If not, then perhaps it
should be on a per-table, per-index (etc.) basis.

--
Randolf Richardson - rr(at)8x(dot)ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.