From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>, "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 03:00:47 |
Message-ID: | D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F89441547055835@postal.corporate.connx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
How about LRU + "learning" --> something like the optimizer?
It might be nice also to be able to pin things in memory.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Mark Kirkwood
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 6:55 PM
To: Simon Riggs
Cc: Neil Conway; Tom Lane; Joshua D. Drake; Jeff Davis; pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
your
joining column's datatypes do not match
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2005-01-21 03:12:06 | Re: Translations at pgfoundry (was Re: [PATCHES] Latest Turkish translation updates) |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2005-01-21 02:55:06 | Re: ARC patent |