|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: WIP: dynahash replacement for buffer table|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> git branch also available at:
A minor review of this:
* Should be rebased ontop of the atomics API
* In benchmarks it becomes apparent that the dynamic element width makes
some macros like CHashTableGetNode() and
CHashTableGetGarbageByBucket() quite expensive. At least gcc on x86
can't figure how to build an efficient expression for the
target. There's two ways to address this:
a) Actually morph chash into something that will be included into the
user sites. Since I think there'll only be a limited number of those
that's probably acceptable.
b) Simplify the access rules. I quite seriously doubt that the
interleaving of garbage and freelists is actually necessary/helpful.
* There's several cases where it's noticeable that chash creates more
cacheline misses - that's imo a good part of why the single threaded
performance regresses. There's good reasons for the current design
without a inline bucket, namely that it makes the concurrency handling
easier. But I think that can be countered by still storing a pointer -
just to an element inside the bucket. Afaics that'd allow this to be
introduced quite easily?
I'm afraid that I can't see us going forward unless we address the
noticeable single threaded penalties. Do you see that differently?
* There's some whitespace damage. (space followed by tab, followed by
* I still think it's a good idea to move the full memory barriers into
the cleanup/writing process by doing write memory barriers when
acquiring a hazard pointer and RMW atomic operations (e.g. atomic add)
in the process testing for the hazard pointer.
* Shouldn't we relax the CPU in a couple places like CHashAllocate(),
* I don't understand right now (but then I'm in a Hotel bar) why it's
safe for CHashAddToGarbage() to clobber the hash value?
CHashBucketScan() relies the chain being ordered by hashcode. No?
Another backend might just have been past the IsMarked() bit and look
at the hashcode?
* We really should find a way to sensibly print the stats.
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2014-11-05 23:42:54||Re: Repeatable read and serializable transactions see data committed after tx start|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2014-11-05 23:19:26||numeric_normalize() is a few bricks shy of a load|