Re: cvs head? initdb?

On Friday 14 November 2003 14:23, Neil Conway wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> >> people would always want to have those choices (especially for doing
> >> development/testing/benchmarking between the different methods) the
> >> question is is it worth the effort to give people those options?
>
> To me, the question is whether it's worth the additional complexity
> for users and administrators, and to a lesser extent the code
> complexity. (I think the answer is "no")

i don't think the complexity for users is that high... depending on
implementation. assuming we end up with clearly definable cases where one is
more usefull than the other. (which seems just as likely not to happen as to
happen)
>
> > And in the case of the cache strategy, the point is that different
> > access patterns might be served better by different strategies.
>
> Granted -- but IMHO it would be better to concentrate on making sure
> that ARC adapts to any access pattern so that the set of access
> patterns where you _really want_ LRU is a small as possible, if not
> empty.
>

but how do you test this if you cant run them both against each other to
compare? (initally running vs 7.4 does tell you something, but even now, 7.5
improved cross datatype index improvments could skew the results of any
comparisons)

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL