Andy Colson writes:
> This patch:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=597
> caches the cache because, I guess, the cache is slow.
> Simon asked, "What is making the first cache so slow?". Pavel does not know,
> nor how to fix it, and nobody else responded.
Well, the cache
Hello
2011/9/5 Andy Colson :
> Pavel, I have not taken on your patch for review, but I was reading the
> history of it, and one question popped up:
>
> If you are allocating a new cache, what if the array is really big, will 1st
> cache + your cache get bigger than work_mem? (or are array op's no
Hello
2011/9/5 Andy Colson :
> This patch:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=597
>
> caches the cache because, I guess, the cache is slow.
>
> Simon asked, "What is making the first cache so slow?". Pavel does not
> know, nor how to fix it, and nobody else responded.
>
>
Pavel, I have not taken on your patch for review, but I was reading the history
of it, and one question popped up:
If you are allocating a new cache, what if the array is really big, will 1st
cache + your cache get bigger than work_mem? (or are array op's not
constrained by work_mem? Sorry,
This patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=597
caches the cache because, I guess, the cache is slow.
Simon asked, "What is making the first cache so slow?". Pavel does not know,
nor how to fix it, and nobody else responded.
So my question is: is someone going to take
