Re: Vacuum thoughts

On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 15:31, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Well, "partial solution" isn't quite what I would call it, and it surely 
> needs integration with sequential scans. I really do expect the whole 
> hack to fall apart if some concurrent seqscans are going on

I'd rather see us implement a buffer replacement policy that considers
both frequency + recency (unlike LRU, which considers only recency).
Ideally, that would work "automagically". I'm hoping to get a chance to
implement ARC[1] during the 7.5 cycle.

-Neil

[1]: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/megiddo03arc.html