Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSI bug?

From: Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSI bug?
Date: 2011-03-31 18:12:16
Message-ID: 20110331181216.GF81592@csail.mit.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:06:30AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The only thing I've been on the fence about is whether it
> makes more sense to allocate it all up front or to continue to allow
> incremental allocation but set a hard limit on the number of entries
> allocated for each shared memory HTAB.  Is there a performance-
> related reason to choose one path or the other?

Seems like it would be marginally better to allocate it up front -- then
you don't have the cost of having to split buckets later as it grows.

Dan

-- 
Dan R. K. Ports              MIT CSAIL                http://drkp.net/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2011-03-31 18:16:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week
Previous:From: Brendan JurdDate: 2011-03-31 17:51:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group