From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: performance issue in remove_from_unowned_list() |
Date: | 2019-03-13 13:47:26 |
Message-ID: | 319fd982-2d28-5879-a8bb-75d1067e8980@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/13/19 1:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Attached is a patch adopting the dlist approach - it seems to be working
>> quite fine, and is a bit cleaner than just slapping another pointer into
>> the SMgrRelationData struct. So I'd say this is the way to go.
>
> What about using a data structure that supports O(1) lookups for any element?
>
> The current efforts all seem to revolve around correctly guessing from
> which end of the list we are likely to delete stuff, but your research
> suggests that we don't always make such guesses particularly well.
> And it seems unnecessary.
>
Isn't the the doubly-linked list is doing exactly that?
AFAICS we already maintain a hash table of the smgr relations, and we
look them up in this table. We don't need to look them up in the list of
unowned relations - the whole problem is that with the current
single-linked list, we need to iterate the list anyway to update pointer
in the preceding entry.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-13 13:48:26 | Re: performance issue in remove_from_unowned_list() |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-13 13:47:15 | Re: [WIP] CREATE SUBSCRIPTION with FOR TABLES clause (table filter) |