Re: Caching (was Re: choosing the right platform)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
Cc: jim@nasby.net, "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>, Matthew Nuzum <cobalt@bearfruit.org>, "'Josh Berkus'" <josh@agliodbs.com>, "'Pgsql-Performance'" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-04-10T14:40:15Z
Lists: pgsql-performance
Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca> writes: > Shouldn't there be a way to lock some tables in PG cache? In my opinion, no. I do not think a manual locking feature could possibly be used effectively. It could very easily be abused to decrease net performance, though :-( It does seem that a smarter buffer management algorithm would be a good idea, but past experiments have failed to show any measurable benefit. Perhaps those experiments were testing the wrong conditions. I'd still be happy to see LRU(k) or some such method put in, if someone can prove that it actually does anything useful for us. (As best I recall, I only tested LRU-2 with pgbench. Perhaps Josh's benchmarking project will offer a wider variety of interesting scenarios.) regards, tom lane