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?
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
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 |