[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I tried to implement LRU-2 awhile ago, and got discouraged when I > > couldn't see any performance improvement. But I was using pgbench as > > the test case, and failed to think about its lack of seqscans. > > Yes , lru-2 will behave like LRU under 'normal' load. it will detect > sequential scans and adapt to it. I think that was why you didn't > see any substantial gain in cache hits. though I think ARC does a better > job. LRU-2 also has logaritmic complexity overhead. > > The ARC guys have tested with real traces from a Db of a large insurrance > company and the results were quite encouraging. (a lot of other traces > where examined as well) > > > We could probably resurrect that code for comparison to 2Q, if anyone > > can devise more interesting benchmark cases to test. > > As i stated before, i'm willing to implement ARC and to see how they all > compare.
Great. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(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
