| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ARC patent |
| Date: | 2005-01-21 02:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | 41F06F0A.4040609@coretech.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:17 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> (snippage)
>>For 8.0.x, I wonder
>>if it would be better to just replace ARC with LRU.
>>
>> Sequential scans will still flood
>>the cache, but I don't view that as an enormous problem.
>
> Agree with everything apart from the idea that seq scan flooding isn't
> an issue. I definitely think it is.
>
Is it feasible to consider LRU + a free-behind or seqscan hint type of
replacement policy?
regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2005-01-21 03:00:47 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-01-21 02:52:28 | Re: ARC patent |