From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com]
> That might be enough to justify having the parameter. But I'm not
> quite sure how high the value would need to be set to actually get the
> benefit in a case like that, or what happens if you set it to a value
> that's not quite high enough. I think it might be good to play around
> some more with cases like this, just to get a feeling for how much
> time you can save in exchange for how much memory.
Why don't we consider this just like the database cache and other DBMS's dictionary caches? That is,
* If you want to avoid infinite memory bloat, set the upper limit on size.
* To find a better limit, check the hit ratio with the statistics view (based on Horiguchi-san's original 0004 patch,
althoughthat seems modification anyway)
Why do people try to get away from a familiar idea... Am I missing something?
Ideriha-san,
Could you try simplifying the v15 patch set to see how simple the code would look or not? That is:
* 0001: add dlist_push_tail() ... as is
* 0002: memory accounting, with correction based on feedback
* 0003: merge the original 0003 and 0005, with correction based on feedback
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
