Tom Lane wrote: > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Bruce wrote: >>"Yes, someone from India has a project to test LRU-K and MRU for >>large table scans and report back the results. He will >>implement whichever is best." >>Did this make it into 7.3? > > No, we never heard back from that guy. It is still a live topic though. > One of the Red Hat people was looking at it over the summer, and I think > Neil Conway is experimenting with LRU-2 code right now.
Okay. > >>2. Gavin Sherry had worked up a patch so that temporary >>relations could be dropped automatically upon transaction >>commit. Did any of those patches it make it? > > > No they didn't; I forget whether there was any objection to his last try > or it was just too late to get reviewed before feature freeze. Nuts. Oh well. Hopefully for 7.4... > >>I notice that >>whenever I create a temporary table in a transaction, my HD >>light blinks. Is this a forced fsync() causes by the fact that >>the SQL standard defines temporary relations as surviving across >>transactions? > > > A completely-in-memory temp table is not really practical in Postgres, > for two reasons: one being that its schema information is stored in > the definitely-not-temp system catalogs, and the other being that we > request allocation of disk space for each page of the table, even if > it's temp. I knew what I was asking made no sense two seconds after clicking 'Send'. Unfortunately, there's no undo on my mail client ;-). Mike Mascari [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
