| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
| 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 18:23:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4D948066020000250003C00B@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> 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.
The attached patch should cover that.
-Kevin
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| htab-alloc.patch | text/plain | 4.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-31 18:31:37 | Re: SSI bug? |
| Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2011-03-31 18:16:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week |