On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:10:40AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Transparent "query caching" is the "industry standard" for how these things 
> are handled.   However, Postgres' lack of this feature has made me consider 
> other approaches, and I'm starting to wonder if the "standard" query caching 
> -- where a materialized query result, or some reduction thereof, is cached in 
> database memory -- isn't the best way to cache things.  I'm going to 
> abbreviate it "SQC" for the rest of this e-mail.
Not to quibble, but are you sure that's the standard? Oracle and DB2
don't do this, and I didn't think MSSQL did either. What they do do is
cache query *plans*. This is a *huge* deal in Oracle; search
http://asktom.oracle.com for 'soft parse'.

In any case, I think a means of marking some specific queries as being
cachable is an excellent idea; perfect for 'static data' scenarios. What
I don't know is how much will be saved.
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to