Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your

From: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
To: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your
Date: 2002-02-26 23:42:11
Message-ID: 1014766931.369.54.camel@jiro (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 18:20, Dann Corbit wrote:
> I don't see how it will do any good.  There is no "prepare" in
> Postgresql
> and therefore you will simply be reexecuting the queries every time any
> way.  Also, parameter markers only work in embedded SQL and that is a 
> single tasking system.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The feature I'm proposing is this:

    When processing SELECT queries but before any real work has been
done, lookup the query in a hash table. If it already exists, return the
cached result. If it doesn't exist, execute the query and cache the
result in the hash table. Optionally, we could not immediately cache the
query, just increment a "frequency" counter stored in the hash table. If
the counter goes above a certain constant, we decide that the query is
worth caching, so we cache the full result in the hash table.

    When processing INSERTs, UPDATEs and DELETEs, check if the query
would affect any of the tables for which we are maintaing this cache. If
so, flush the cache. This ensures that we will never return invalid
results. We could perhaps be fancy and keep stats on which columns our
cached queries utilize and which columns the modifying query will
affect, but that is unlikely to be an overall win.

HOWEVER -- I don't see this feature as something that will appeal to,
say, 75% of PgSQL users. If the table in question is being modified on a
regular basis, or if a wide variety of queries are being issued, this
cache isn't a good idea. Nevertheless, I think there are certainly some
situations in which this cache is useful -- and furthermore, these kinds
of "mostly read-only" situations are often where MySQL is chosen over

Anyway, just putting this on the table -- if the consensus is that this
isn't a very worthwhile feature, I won't bother with it.



Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-02-26 23:43:56
Subject: Re: single task postgresql
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-02-26 23:33:27
Subject: Re: COPY FROM is not 8bit clean

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group