Re: updated qCache

From: Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: updated qCache
Date: 2002-04-18 08:55:19
Message-ID: 20020418105518.B13923@zf.jcu.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:05:59PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:34:45 -0700
>
> I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just think I'd like to
> concentrate on the locally-cached plans for now and see if
> there is a need to add shared plans later.

Yes, later we can use shared memory buffer as "pipe" between
backends:

Backend A: Backend B:
local-memory-query-plan --> shmem --> local-memory-query-plan

In this idea is in the shared memory one query-plan only and backends
use it for plan copying from "A" to "B".

It require persistent backends of course.

Karel

PS. it's idea only and nothing other, the original qcache was idea
only too :-)
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Loftis 2002-04-18 08:56:43 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message tycho 2002-04-18 08:41:15 Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE