Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Date
Msg-id 1173204582.13722.418.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 12:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > If I were to implement this idea, I think Heikki's bitmap of pages
> > already read is the way to go.
> 
> I think that's a good way to guarantee that you'll not finish in time
> for 8.3.  Heikki's idea is just at the handwaving stage at this point,
> and I'm not even convinced that it will offer any win.  (Pages in
> cache will be picked up by a seqscan already.)
> 

I agree that it's a good idea stick with the current implementation
which is, as far as I can see, meeting all of my performance goals.

Regards,Jeff Davis





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation vs. unnamed prepared statements
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Plan invalidation vs. unnamed prepared statements