From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
Date: | 2019-02-18 23:42:32 |
Message-ID: | 11525.1550533352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> The attached patch speeds up transaction completion when any prior transaction accessed many relations in the same session.
Hm. Putting a list header for a purely-local data structure into shared
memory seems quite ugly. Isn't there a better place to keep that?
Do we really want a dlist here at all? I'm concerned that bloating
LOCALLOCK will cost us when there are many locks involved. This patch
increases the size of LOCALLOCK by 25% if I counted right, which does
not seem like a negligible penalty.
My own thought about how to improve this situation was just to destroy
and recreate LockMethodLocalHash at transaction end (or start)
if its size exceeded $some-value. Leaving it permanently bloated seems
like possibly a bad idea, even if we get rid of all the hash_seq_searches
on it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-02-18 23:43:42 | RE: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-18 23:30:17 | Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE |