From: Stefan Weiss <spaceman@foo.at>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Is There Any Way ....
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:31:42 +0200
Message-ID: <43425A0E.2050305@foo.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EKEMKEFLOMKDDLIALABIMECFCDAA.lvaningen@esncc.com>
References: <EKEMKEFLOMKDDLIALABIMECFCDAA.lvaningen@esncc.com>
On 2005-09-30 01:21, Lane Van Ingen wrote:
> (3) Assure that a disk-based table is always in memory (outside of keeping
> it in
> memory buffers as a result of frequent activity which would prevent
> LRU
> operations from taking it out) ?
I was wondering about this too. IMO it would be useful to have a way to tell
PG that some tables were needed frequently, and should be cached if
possible. This would allow application developers to consider joins with
these tables as "cheap", even when querying on columns that are not indexed.
I'm thinking about smallish tables like users, groups, *types, etc which
would be needed every 2-3 queries, but might be swept out of RAM by one
large query in between. Keeping a table like "users" on a RAM fs would not
be an option, because the information is not volatile.
cheers,
stefan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: spaceman@foo.at
Subject: Re: Is There Any Way ....
In-Reply-To: <43425A0E.2050305@foo.at>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox