| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Doug Rady <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Sherry Moore <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Date: | 2007-03-06 18:09:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1173204582.13722.418.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 12:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > If I were to implement this idea, I think Heikki's bitmap of pages
> > already read is the way to go.
>
> I think that's a good way to guarantee that you'll not finish in time
> for 8.3. Heikki's idea is just at the handwaving stage at this point,
> and I'm not even convinced that it will offer any win. (Pages in
> cache will be picked up by a seqscan already.)
>
I agree that it's a good idea stick with the current implementation
which is, as far as I can see, meeting all of my performance goals.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-06 18:14:42 | Re: Plan invalidation vs. unnamed prepared statements |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-03-06 18:04:16 | Re: Plan invalidation vs. unnamed prepared statements |