Re: Temp tables and LRU-K caching
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Temp tables and LRU-K caching |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200209231634.g8NGYXq24378@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Temp tables and LRU-K caching (Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Temp tables and LRU-K caching
(Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari wrote: > Hello. > > I'm just curious as to the 7.3 status of a couple of things: > > 1. Back in Feb. I wrote (in regards to Oracle behavior): > > "Unlike normal queries where blocks are added to the MRU end of > an LRU list, full table scans add the blocks to the LRU end of > the LRU list. I was wondering, in the light of the discussion of > using LRU-K, if PostgreSQL does, or if anyone has tried, this > technique?" > > Bruce wrote: > > "Yes, someone from India has a project to test LRU-K and MRU for > large table scans and report back the results. He will > implement whichever is best." > > Did this make it into 7.3? That person stopped working on it. It is still on the TODO list. > 2. Gavin Sherry had worked up a patch so that temporary > relations could be dropped automatically upon transaction > commit. Did any of those patches it make it? I notice that > whenever I create a temporary table in a transaction, my HD > light blinks. Is this a forced fsync() causes by the fact that > the SQL standard defines temporary relations as surviving across > transactions? If so, I'd bet those of us who use > transaction-local temporary tables could get few drops more of > performance from an ON COMMIT drop patch w/o fsync. This has me confused. There was an exchange with Gavin Auguest 27/28 which resulted in a patch: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-08/msg00475.php and my adding it to the patches list: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-08/msg00502.php However, it was never applied. I don't see any discussion refuting the patch or any email removing it from the queue. The only thing I can think of is that somehow I didn't apply it. My only guess is that I said I was putting in the queue, but didn't. I am concerned if there are any other patches I missed. I see the cube patch being added to the queue 40 seconds later, and I know that was in there because I see the message removing it from the queue. I must have made a mistake on that one. What do we do now? The author clearly got it in before beta, but we are in beta now. I think we should apply it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: