Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Neil and I spoke with Jan briefly last week and he mentioned a few
> different approaches he'd been tossing over. Firstly, for alternative
> runs, start X% on from the LRU, so that we aren't scanning clean buffers
> all the time. Secondly, follow something like the approach you've
> mentioned above but remember the offset. So, if we're scanning 10%, after
> 10 runs we will have written out all buffers.
>
> I was also thinking of benchmarking the effect of changing the algorithm
> in StrategyDirtyBufferList(): currently, for each iteration of the loop we
> read a buffer from each of T1 and T2. I was wondering what effect reading
> T1 first then T2 and vice versa would have on performance. I haven't
> thought about this too hard, though, so it might be wrong headed.
So we are all thinking in the same direction. We might have only a few
days to finalize this before final release.
-- 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
