On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:51:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Certainly a shared cache would be good for apps that connect to issue a
> > single query frequently. In such cases, there would be no local cache
> > to use.
>
> We have enough other problems with the single-query-per-connection
> scenario that I see no reason to believe that a shared plan cache will
> help materially. The correct answer for those folks will *always* be
> to find a way to reuse the connection.
My query cache was write for 7.0. If some next release will use
pre-forked backend and after a client disconnection the backend will
still alives and waits for new client the shared cache is (maybe:-) not
needful. The current backend fork model is killer of all possible
caching.
We have more caches. I hope persistent backend help will help to all
and I'm sure that speed will grow up with persistent backend and
persistent caches without shared memory usage. There I can agree with
Tom :-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
