| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "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: | 2019-02-19 00:24:54 |
| Message-ID: | 13254.1550535894@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-02-18 18:42:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> It's currently [ 80 bytes with several padding holes ]
> seems we could trivially squeeze most of the bytes for a dlist node out
> of padding.
Yeah, but if we want to rearrange the members into an illogical order
to save some space, we should do that independently of this patch ---
and then the overhead of this patch would be even worse than 25%.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-19 00:41:07 | Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-19 00:20:12 | Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |