| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)synchronicity(dot)com |
| Cc: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cache control? |
| Date: | 2004-01-16 17:38:28 |
| Message-ID: | 8765fbx08b.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Michael Brusser <michael(at)synchronicity(dot)com> writes:
> Is there a way to force database to load a frequently-accessed table
> into cache and keep it there?
No.
BTW, this idea has been suggested in the past, so check the archives
for the prior discussions on this topic. The usual response is that
the PostgreSQL bufmgr should already placing hot pages into the cache,
so there isn't really a need for this mechanism. (And if the bufmgr
doesn't do this well enough, we should improve the bufmgr -- as Jan
has done for 7.5)
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-01-16 17:41:35 | Re: nomenclature |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-01-16 17:32:52 | Re: nomenclature |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-01-16 17:43:24 | Re: cache control? |
| Previous Message | Reinoud van Leeuwen | 2004-01-16 17:20:21 | Re: cache control? |