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: | 200503030428.j234Saf04856@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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
> >> http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/311/
> >> 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?
Good.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-03 04:36:51 | Doc correction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-03 01:55:31 | Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent |