From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Perceived weaknesses of postgres |
Date: | 2008-02-13 12:48:12 |
Message-ID: | 1202906892.5555.28.camel@PCD12478 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:39 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:29 +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > > * no direct table cache control;
> >
> > Could you elaborate more on this one?
>
OK, re-reading what I just wrote makes me think it was not clear enough:
I think they mean you can _reserve_ some cache memory directly to
specific tables/table groups so that reserved cache is only used by
those tables, and thus will not be sensitive to other activities than
the access to those tables. Particularly a sequential scan on another,
big, table will not touch that reserved cache, or any other big sweep of
data access on other tables.
Not sure this time I got it actually clearer though :-)
Cheers,
Csaba.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2008-02-13 12:51:26 | Re: Perceived weaknesses of postgres |
Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2008-02-13 12:39:38 | Re: Perceived weaknesses of postgres |