Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:33:28 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm still pretty desperately unhappy with your insistence on circularly
>> linked dlists. Not only does that make initialization problematic,
>> but now it's not even consistent with slists.
> We literally have tens of thousands list manipulation a second if the server is
Tens of thousands, with maybe 1ns extra per call, adds up to what?
> I am really sorry for being stubborn here, but I changed to circular lists
> after profiling and finding that pipeline stalls & misprediced branches where
> the major thing I could change. Not sure how we can resolv this :(
I'm going to be stubborn too. I think you're allowing very small
micro-optimization arguments to contort the design of a fundamental data
structure, in a way that makes it harder to use. That's not a tradeoff
I like. Especially when the micro-optimization isn't even uniformly a
win. I remain of the opinion that the extra cycles spent on iteration
(which are real despite your denials) will outweigh any savings in list
alteration in many use-cases.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-10-01 15:37:21|
|Subject: Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal|
|Previous:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2012-10-01 15:22:21|
|Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements|