Simon Riggs wrote:
> Some feedback from initial testing is that 2 queues probably isn't
> enough. If you have tables with 100s of blocks and tables with millions
> of blocks, the tables in the mid-range still lose out. So I'm thinking
> that a design with 3 queues based upon size ranges, plus the idea that
> when a queue is empty it will scan for tables slightly above/below its
> normal range.
Yeah, eventually it occurred to me the fact that as soon as you have 2
queues, you may as well want to have 3 or in fact any number. Which in
my proposal is very easily achieved.
> Alvaro, have you completed your design?
No, I haven't, and the part that's missing is precisely the queues
stuff. I think I've been delaying posting it for too long, and that is
harmful because it makes other people waste time thinking on issues that
I may already have resolved, and delays the bashing that yet others will
surely inflict on my proposal, which is never a good thing ;-) So maybe
I'll put in a stub about the "queues" stuff and see how people like the
whole thing.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
