From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: simplehash: SH_OPTIMIZE_REPEAT for optimizing repeated lookups of the same key |
Date: | 2023-11-21 16:51:38 |
Message-ID: | 20231121165138.eoag2db3phqenzj5@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-11-20 22:37:47 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 22:50 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > I'm mostly thinking out loud here, but could we just always do this?
> > I
> > guess you might want to avoid it if your SH_EQUAL is particularly
> > expensive
> > and you know repeated lookups are rare, but maybe that's uncommon
> > enough
> > that we don't really care.
>
> I like that simplehash is simple, so I'm not inclined to introduce an
> always-on feature.
I think it'd be a bad idea to make it always on - there's plenty cases where
it just would make things slower because the hit rate is low. A equal
comparison is far from free.
I am not quite sure this kind of cache best lives in simplehash - ISTM that
quite often it'd be more beneficial to have a cache that you can test more
cheaply higher up.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-11-21 17:00:25 | Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-11-21 16:49:18 | Re: Locks on unlogged tables are locked?! |