Raymond Raymond wrote: > I have been thinking of the automatic checkpointing issue > recently.I also find someone added another issue about "Use > of idle time for background checkpoint" into the to-do list. > I think we can consider these two issue together. I have > some idea about it. > > Instead of doing checkpoint periodically and trying to tune the > checkpoint interval to achieve best performance, is it possible to > keep the background checkpoint process running to do checkpoint, > and the DBMS can tune the rate of checkpoint depending on the > current system situation,e.g. if the system is busy, derby will > slow down the checkpoint rate and if the system is not busy(idle), > derby will speed up the checkpoint rate.We will update the control > file periodically to let the DBMS know up to where we did checkpoint. > Maybe we can call it 'increamental checkpointing'. In my opinion, > this approach can use the disk IO resources with reason if we can > decide the checkpoint rate reasonablly. > > I would like to discuss this issue with everyone. I am not > sure if this approach is doable or not. If it is doable, I will > have some further questions about how to decide the appropriate > checkpoint rate.
Sounds like an interesting project, and I think it's doable, it's just a matter of coding! :-) One thing I think you want to consider up front is what problem are you trying to solve, or what are you trying to improve or simply why is this a good idea. Having a clear goal can make implementation decisions clearer. Dan.
