Re: Cache and Store

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 19:38 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 11 May 2007 08:24, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:20 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > On Thursday 10 May 2007 21:38, Bob Ham wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 00:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 20:28, Bob Ham wrote:
> > > > > > That was what I proposed near the start of this thread.  I would
> > > > > > note, as well, that the store-shrinking code should already exist
> > > > > > for cases when the user reduces the configured size of the store.
> > > > >
> > > > > It does, but as I have already stated at least once, it is difficult
> > > > > to efficiently do an online shrink while preserving the most recently
> > > > > used data.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is of course possible. One way to do it is to swap the key you'd
> > > > > be deleting with the least recently used key just before truncating.
> > > >
> > > > What's your point?
> > >
> > > Obviously the latter is preferred but we can only do it on startup.
> >
> > I'm still unsure as to why you're telling us this.  Is your point that
> > work still needs to be done on store shrinking?
> 
> No, it's that dynamically shrinking the cache as the store grows isn't 
> feasible without additional work on shrinking.

Erm.. it isn't feasible without additional work on itself, either.  Your
point is completely redundant.  No code is feasible without its
dependencies.

Bob

-- 
Bob Ham <[email protected]>