From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Date: | 2010-04-16 14:52:49 |
Message-ID: | 1271429569.8305.8477.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 10:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > I didn't handle xid wraparound correctly in the binary search, need to use
> > TransactionIdFollows instead of plan >.
>
> I think you're outsmarting yourself there. A binary search will in fact
> *not work* with circular xid comparison (this is exactly why there's no
> btree opclass for XID). You need to use plain >, and make sure the
> array you're searching is ordered that way too. The other way might
> accidentally fail to malfunction if you only tested ranges of XIDs that
> weren't long enough to wrap around, but that doesn't make it right.
I don't understand the exact, please explain more.
I'm not using bsearch() just a quick chop based upon xid comparison,
which looks to me like it will work.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-16 15:10:45 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-16 14:39:52 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |