> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:41:52 -0500
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Proof-of-concept ARC removal patches

Re: subject -- shouldn't it be "replacement" and _not_ "removal" of ARC?

> Attached are two different variants of a patch to remove the ARC
> cache algorithm in favor of variants of the "2Q" algorithm.
> In some desultory testing with pgbench, there was no significant
> performance difference among the three algorithms, which leads me to
> think that simplified 2Q might be the best bet (it certainly has the
> smallest memory footprint).  But it would be a good idea to do some
> more measurements before believing that.  I hope that Mark Wong can give
> these a try on his setup soon.
> Comments?

Wouldn't it been much more usable and fair to be able to "load" any of those
modules as I am, the user see fit? So, I could swap the algos on the fly
whichever better suits me? That will also lay down ground suitable for easier
performance testing between the modules should people write their own, new

I'd keep the ARC around and not remove as a proof-of-concept module as well.
Whatever the status of the IBM's ARC patent may become, the US customers will
simply not use the module. Researchers, however, will always be able to tell
that their modules are better or worse by comparing them to ARC (or 2Q or

>                       regards, tom lane

Serguei A. Mokhov            |  /~\    The ASCII
Computer Science Department  |  \ / Ribbon Campaign
Concordia University         |   X    Against HTML
Montreal, Quebec, Canada     |  / \      Email!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to