Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:15:54PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Thanks.  This seems odd though, since it appears to level out at
> >> something above 4K TPM.  Your previous run
> >> http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/311/
> >> shows it dropping to 3500 or so.  What changed?
> 
> > Other than pulling from CVS at a different time, it should all be
> > the same parameters, etc.
> 
> Hmph.  The truth is probably somewhere in between these two curves.
> But in any case, I think we can make the conclusion we wanted to
> make: 2Q isn't seriously worse than ARC.  Since this is a dead line
> of development anyway in view of the early results with the clock
> sweep algorithm, I don't think there's any need to spend more time
> measuring the differences carefully.

He reported a huge benefit in current CVS, like 30% --- was that because
of the clock algorithm?

> I'll go ahead and apply the 2Q patch to the 8.0 branch, unless there
> are objections?

Good.

-- 
  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: 8.0.X and the ARC patent at 2005-03-03 01:33:38 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Christopher Kings-Lynne	Date: 2005-03-03 04:36:51
	Subject: Doc correction
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-03-03 01:55:31
	Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent