Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: Escaping the ARC patent at 2005-02-04 16:27:40 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Josh Berkus	Date: 2005-02-04 18:12:27
	Subject: Patch Count?
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-02-04 16:51:54
	Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0