Re: cvs head? initdb?

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: cvs head? initdb?
Date: 2003-11-15 15:47:20
Message-ID: 3FB64A88.3050103@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Our philosophy has never been to give people configuration options just
> in case they might be valuable to them. If we did that, we would be
> like Oracle.
>
> We give config options only if we can't decide the best default. For
> testing, you can have an #ifdef and we can test it ourselves. If we can
> find the best default, no need to burden the user with it.

Please tell me what is the best default cache replacement strategy for
PostgreSQL. Comparing the old LRU to the new ARC the winner is clear.
But what about MQ, 2Q, FBR, LFRU, LRU2 LFU and MRU?

Jan

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> 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
>>
>

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-15 15:54:46 Re: cvs head? initdb?
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2003-11-15 10:21:09 Re: Help with count(*)