On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:33 AM Julien Rouhaud <
rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some actual numbers on recent hardware would show what kind of tradeoff is involved. No one has done that for a long time that I recall.
>
> Agreed, but I don't have access to such hardware. However this won't
Well, by "recent" I had in mind something more recent than 2002, which is the time where I see a lot of hits in the archives if you search for this topic.
> influence the memory overhead part, and there is already frequent
> problems with that, especially since declarative partitioning, so I
That's a fair point.
> don't see how we could afford that without some kind of cache TTL or
> similar. AFAIR the last discussion about it a few years ago didn't
> lead anywhere :(
If you mean the thread "Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries", it had activity earlier this year, so I wouldn't give up hope just yet. Progress has been slow, so I'll see about putting some effort into that after concluding my attempt to speed up the syscaches first [1].
The main thing I'm worried about is the fact that a name would no longer fit in a Datum. The rest I think we can mitigate in some way.
