On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Michael Nolan wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I basically agree. There have been several recent discussions of this
>> topic on both -hackers and -performance; it is likely that the TODO
>> needs to be updated with some more re
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I basically agree. There have been several recent discussions of this
> topic on both -hackers and -performance; it is likely that the TODO
> needs to be updated with some more recent links.
>
Anything to help the NKOTB to get up to speed
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> This data would probably need to be kept separately for each table or
>> index, as some tables or indexes
>> may be mostly or fully in cache or on faster physical media than others,
>> although in the absence of other
>> data about a specific
Michael Nolan wrote:
Based on last year's discussion of this TODO item, it seems thoughts
have been focused on estimating how much data is
being satisfied from PG's shared buffers. However, I think that's
only part of the problem.
Sure, but neither it nor what you're talking about are the r
In the TODO list is this item:
*Modify the planner to better estimate caching effects
*
Tom mentioned this in his presentation at PGCON, and I also chatted with Tom
about it briefly afterwards.
Based on last year's discussion of this TODO item, it seems thoughts have
been focused on estimating ho
