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

Re: 8.0.X and 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: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, 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 04:28:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
> >>
> >> 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                        |
  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-LynneDate: 2005-03-03 04:36:51
Subject: Doc correction
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-03 01:55:31
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group