Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.
Someone just started working on it this week. He emailed Jan and I. He
hopes to have a patch in a few days. I will make sure he posts to
hackers/patches.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
