From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] I've got it, now should I commit it? |
Date: | 1999-05-18 15:18:16 |
Message-ID: | 199905181518.LAA27021@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> After reading a couple more complaints of hashtable-overflow error
> messages, I went ahead and rewrote the hash join modules so that they
> don't use fixed-size hash buckets and a fixed-size overflow area.
> Instead, each bucket is just a linked list of tuples (thus no wasted
> space for underused buckets) and everything is put into a private portal
> so that reclaiming the space is easy/quick. The code is noticeably
> shorter and more readable than before.
>
> The limited amount of testing I've been able to do here shows no
> problems.
>
> Now: do I commit it, or wait till after 6.5? I promised Marc the latter
> a couple weeks ago, but I am mighty tempted to just go for it...
Shhh. He will never know. Did you promise Marc, or did you answer him
evasively, like I suggested?
Basically, with the new optimizer, this may be a bug fix because of the
more frequent hashjoins. That has always been my smokescreen to add the
feature.
:-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-18 15:19:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Current TODO list |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-18 15:00:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Current TODO list |