|From:||Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|To:||Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>|
|Cc:||Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: SSI bug?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 31.03.2011 21:23, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Dan Ports<drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> 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
>>> incremental allocation but set a hard limit on the number of
>>> 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 --
>> you don't have the cost of having to split buckets later as it
> The attached patch should cover that.
That's not enough. The hash tables can grow beyond the maximum size you
specify in ShmemInitHash. It's just a hint to size the directory within
the hash table.
We'll need to teach dynahash not to allocate any more entries after the
preallocation. A new HASH_NO_GROW flag to hash_create() seems like a
|Next Message||Brendan Jurd||2011-03-31 18:46:14||Re: [HACKERS] Date conversion using day of week|
|Previous Message||Kevin Grittner||2011-03-31 18:23:50||Re: SSI bug?|