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. -Neil [1]: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/megiddo03arc.html ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
