| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ARC patent |
| Date: | 2005-01-19 10:54:23 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D2A4@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > There's a very recent paper at
> > http://carmen.cs.uiuc.edu/~zchen9/paper/TPDS-final.ps on an alternative
> > to ARC which claims superior performance ...
>
> From a quick glance, this doesn't look applicable. The authors are
> discussing buffer replacement strategies for a multi-level cache
> hierarchy (e.g. they would call the DBMS buffer cache "L1", and the
Yes, it might not matter however. Another algorithm that was written by
university folk (thus probably not patent prone) that looks promising is:
http://www.cs.wm.edu/hpcs/WWW/HTML/publications/papers/TR-02-6.pdf
http://parapet.ee.princeton.edu/~sigm2002/papers/p31-jiang.pdf (same, but better typeset)
It even seems to slightly beat ARC according to the MQ paper.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-01-19 11:33:15 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-01-19 09:53:14 | Re: ARC patent |