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.
