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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
