From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Poor memory context performance in large hash joins |
Date: | 2017-02-24 07:25:16 |
Message-ID: | 20170224072516.pifpksx4725rfv4t@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-02-24 01:59:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2017-02-23 17:28:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe it's time to convert that to a doubly-linked list.
>
> > Yes, I do think so. Given that we only have that for full blocks, not
> > for small chunks, the cost seems neglegible.
> > That would also, partially, address the performance issue
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/d15dff83-0b37-28ed-0809-95a5cc7292ad%402ndquadrant.com
> > addresses, in a more realistically backpatchable manner.
>
> Yeah, I was wondering if we could get away with back-patching such a
> change. In principle, nothing outside aset.c should know what's in the
> header of an AllocBlock, but ...
You'd need to go through a fair amount of intentional pain to be
affected by a change AllocBlockData's structure. We could add the
->prev pointer to the end of AllocBlockData's definition to make it less
likely that one would be affected in that unlikely case - but I'm a bit
doubtful it's worth the trouble.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-24 07:25:38 | Re: Make subquery alias optional in FROM clause |
Previous Message | Beena Emerson | 2017-02-24 07:17:00 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |