Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Date: 2005-03-03 01:33:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
>> 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.

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

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-03 01:55:31
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Previous:From: Qu TianlianDate: 2005-03-03 01:23:05
Subject: hi all

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group