Re: per table random-page-cost?

Greg Stark  wrote:
> There is another use case which perhaps needs to be addressed: if
> the user has some queries which are very latency sensitive and
> others which are not latency sensitive.
Yes.  Some products allow you to create a named cache and bind
particular objects to it.  This can be used both to keep a large
object with a low cache hit rate from pushing other things out of the
cache or to create a pseudo "memory resident" set of objects by
binding them to a cache which is sized a little bigger than those
objects.  I don't know if you have any other suggestions for this
problem, but the named cache idea didn't go over well last time it was
suggested.
In all fairness, PostgreSQL does a good enough job in general that I
haven't missed this feature nearly as much as I thought I would; and
its absence means one less thing to worry about keeping properly
tuned.
-Kevin