Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Escaping the ARC patent

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Escaping the ARC patent
Date: 2005-02-04 16:27:40
Message-ID: 14959.1107534460@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> So are you saying you are making T1, T2, B1, and B2 a fixed percentage
> of the buffer cache rather than making them adjust over time?

B2 goes away entirely (if we keep four lists we violate claim 45) and
the other lists become fixed length, yes.

We could also contemplate making them variable length according to some
other set of rules than ARC's, but then you get into having to parse the
other sixty-odd claims of the patent and decide what is a "different
enough" rule.

At the moment I'm not seeing evidence that a variable policy beats a
fixed policy anyway.  Unless someone comes up with a benchmark showing a
substantial advantage for ARC over 2Q, I think we should just declare
victory over this problem.  We have plenty of other tasks on our plates.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-02-04 16:51:54
Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-04 15:27:05
Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group