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

Re: SSI bug?

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 (view raw or flat)
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: htab-alloc.patch
Description: text/plain (4.3 KB)

In response to

Responses

  • Re: SSI bug? at 2011-03-31 18:31:37 from Heikki Linnakangas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-03-31 18:31:37
Subject: Re: SSI bug?
Previous:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2011-03-31 18:16:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week

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