On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:18:07PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> OK. I would like to stretch your agreement a little. :-)
> ...
Yeah, you got a point here.
> By the new FETCH request. Instead of the above, I imagined this:
> - the runtime notices that the new request is larger than the current
> readahead window size, modifies the readahead window size upwards,
> so the next FETCH will use it
> - serve the request's first 128 rows from the current cache
> - for the 129th row, FETCH 1024 will be executed and the remaining
> 768 rows will be served from the new cache
That means window size goes up to 1024-128 for that one case?
> - all subsequent requests use the new readahead size, 1024
Sounds reasonable to me.
> So, there can be occasional one-time larger requests but
> smaller ones should apply the set window size, right?
Yes. I do agree that FETCH N cannot fetch N all the time, but please make it
work like what you suggested to make sure people don't have to recompile.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com
VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL