Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
- Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:21:19 -0400
- Message-id: <25176(dot)1127604079(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes: > Rather than keeping track of which relation was last used (presumably > everytime something hits the FSM), wouldn't it make more sense to just > drop the relation with the smallest amount of free space in the map? Why? That certainly wouldn't be cheaper to track. > Of course maybe a better question is why we even limit based on the > number of relations... Shared memory is fixed-size. regards, tom lane
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- References:
- Discarding relations from FSM
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Discarding relations from FSM
- Prev by Date: Re: \x output blowing up
- Next by Date: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow
- Previous by thread: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Next by thread: Re: Discarding relations from FSM
- Indexes: