| From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| 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 18:12:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20110331181216.GF81592@csail.mit.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2011-03-31 18:16:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2011-03-31 17:51:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week |