| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: regex cache |
| Date: | 2008-06-18 22:31:55 |
| Message-ID: | 48598CDB.2020202@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> I'm not excited about it either, but I think if we're going to make
> this adjustable it does need its own knob. I can easily believe
> that a large list of precompiled GUCs could be counterproductive
> given a workload where you don't get much reuse, so I don't want
> the list size going to the moon just because someone cranked up
> work_mem for other purposes.
Yes. I was just trying to avoid thinking about it. ;-)
>
> (I'm not real sure that that "self-organizing list" data structure
> would work well beyond 1000 or so entries even if you did have
> enough re-use to justify them all. Anyone want to try to do some
> performance testing? In particular I think we might want to drop
> the move-to-front approach in favor of move-up-one, just to avoid
> O(N^2) memmove costs.)
Hmmm. Yeah, I can see that.
Well, I have a test case here (the PostgreSQL download logs), or I
wouldn't have brought up the issue. I just need to find a way to
multi-thread it so I can get the effect of multiple clients.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-06-18 22:41:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Hint Bits and Write I/O |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-18 22:08:47 | Re: regex cache |