On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 07:28:16AM -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> > I think this would be extremely dangerous, as it would encourage
> > processes to take more than their fair share of available resources.
>
> I agree - in fact, we currently have no structured concept of "fair share of
> available resources", nor a way to share them.
A concept it would be great to add at some point, both for memory and
IO. But that's another discussion entirely.
> I think the answer to this should involve the use of statement queuing and
> resource queues.
Something else to consider is reducing the amount of memory used when we
have to fail to a tape sort, because at that point we'll be
substantially slower. So, for example, allow in-memory sorts to use up
to 1GB, because it shouldn't take a long period of time to read that
data in, and the sort will then be extremely fast. That means that the
sort would be using that amount of memory for a short period of time. If
we do have to fail to disk, cut back to 128MB, because having 8x that
certainly won't make the sort run anywhere close to 8x faster. The trick
would be releasing memory that a sort we thought could fit in memory but
couldn't. It would also be good to start estimating which sorts should
fit in memory and which won't before we start (AFAIK the current code
assumes we'll fit in memory until it runs out).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461