On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:39 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote: > On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:29 +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > > > * no direct table cache control; > > > > Could you elaborate more on this one? > OK, re-reading what I just wrote makes me think it was not clear enough: I think they mean you can _reserve_ some cache memory directly to specific tables/table groups so that reserved cache is only used by those tables, and thus will not be sensitive to other activities than the access to those tables. Particularly a sequential scan on another, big, table will not touch that reserved cache, or any other big sweep of data access on other tables. Not sure this time I got it actually clearer though :-) Cheers, Csaba. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
