| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lockfree hashtables |
| Date: | 2008-12-31 13:28:26 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920812310528h1da15236l9d71d6e5db56f9db@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Stephen R. van den Berg <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl>wrote:
> The other day I bumped into some ideas about lockfree hashtables.
> Are these of any use in PostgreSQL?
Lock-free and wait-free algorithms have been used in various databases, but
most people tend to shy away from them because of their complexity,
difficulty to debug, and low-level portability issues.
I've used them in the past (lock-free hash tables and skip lists), and
they're pretty awesome if used properly, but the majority of PG's current
performance problems aren't generally found as part of our hash table
implementation (which I'm quite fond of actually). FWIS, I think we'll look
more into this sometime in the future.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-31 15:49:03 | Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits |
| Previous Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2008-12-31 12:33:56 | Lockfree hashtables |