Re: Priority table or Cache table

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> > I want to propose a new feature called "priority table" or "cache
> >> > table".
> >> > This is same as regular table except the pages of these tables are
> >> > having
> >> > high priority than normal tables. These tables are very useful, where
> a
> >> > faster query processing on some particular tables is expected.
> >>
> >> Why exactly does the existing LRU behavior of shared buffers not do
> >> what you need?
> >
> >
> > Lets assume a database having 3 tables, which are accessed regularly. The
> > user is expecting a faster query results on one table.
> > Because of LRU behavior which is not happening some times.
>
> I think this will not be a problem for regularly accessed tables(pages),
> as per current algorithm they will get more priority before getting
> flushed out of shared buffer cache.
> Have you come across any such case where regularly accessed pages
> get lower priority than non-regularly accessed pages?
>

Because of other regularly accessed tables, some times the table which
expects faster results is getting delayed.


> However it might be required for cases where user wants to control
> such behaviour and pass such hints through table level option or some
> other way to indicate that he wants more priority for certain tables
> irrespective
> of their usage w.r.t other tables.
>
> Now I think here important thing to find out is how much helpful it is for
> users or why do they want to control such behaviour even when Database
> already takes care of such thing based on access pattern.
>

Yes it is useful in cases where the application always expects the faster
results whether the table is used regularly or not.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia