On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was wondering: is there an in-principle reason that there isn't any
> > mechanism for locking a table in memory, or is it just that no-one
> > has ever done it?
>
> Why would you? If the table is being heavily accessed then it will stay
> in memory. If it gets dropped from memory then the memory was needed
> for something else that's more heavily used at the moment.
I tend to agree with this, but I can imagine a case where a machine
is actually being asked to do more than it should. In that case, you
might decide that you want to preserve the performance on certain
tables, at the expense of the overall system. I don't even know
whether that would work; it's just the standard answer I get when I
ask Oracle guys whether Oracle's memory management is so bad that
they have to lock tables in memory. ;-)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110