Michael Nolan wrote:
Based on last year's discussion of this TODO item, it seems thoughts
have been focused on estimating how much data is
being satisfied from PG's shared buffers. However, I think that's
only part of the problem.
Sure, but neither it nor what you're talking about are the
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This data would probably need to be kept separately for each table or
index, as some tables or indexes
may be mostly or fully in cache or on faster physical media than others,
although in the absence of other
data about
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I basically agree. There have been several recent discussions of this
topic on both -hackers and -performance; it is likely that the TODO
needs to be updated with some more recent links.
Anything to help the NKOTB
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I basically agree. There have been several recent discussions of this
topic on both -hackers and -performance; it is likely that the TODO
needs to
In the TODO list is this item:
*Modify the planner to better estimate caching effects
*
Tom mentioned this in his presentation at PGCON, and I also chatted with Tom
about it briefly afterwards.
Based on last year's discussion of this TODO item, it seems thoughts have
been focused on estimating
