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

Re: Escaping the ARC patent

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Escaping the ARC patent
Date: 2005-02-04 17:05:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > So are you saying you are making T1, T2, B1, and B2 a fixed percentage
> > of the buffer cache rather than making them adjust over time?
> B2 goes away entirely (if we keep four lists we violate claim 45) and
> the other lists become fixed length, yes.
> We could also contemplate making them variable length according to some
> other set of rules than ARC's, but then you get into having to parse the
> other sixty-odd claims of the patent and decide what is a "different
> enough" rule.
> At the moment I'm not seeing evidence that a variable policy beats a
> fixed policy anyway.  Unless someone comes up with a benchmark showing a
> substantial advantage for ARC over 2Q, I think we should just declare
> victory over this problem.  We have plenty of other tasks on our plates.


  Bruce Momjian                        |
  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: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-02-04 18:12:27
Subject: Patch Count?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-02-04 16:51:54
Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0

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