On Friday 14 November 2003 12:03, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 10:32, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >>
> >> Or did you mean ARC itself? Since it replaced the old LRU code, it is
> >> the only choice you have now. Which sort of raises the question if we
> >> would want to have multiple choices, like a config option
> >>
> >> buffer_replacement_strategy = lru|lru2|arc
> >
> > 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?
>
> And in the case of the cache strategy, the point is that different
> access patterns might be served better by different strategies. Then
> again, who will really test this and try to tune ALL of them to find the
> best choice, and is this possible at all given that all databases under
> one postmaster share the same buffer pool?
>
I could see people like the OSDB folks or some of the folks on -performance at
least doing some testing against the different backends. Probably not
extensive but I bet enough to see if there is a clear winner for some types
of work. You might not be able to test them in parallel, but certainly you
could serially.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
