xoror@infuse.org 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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073