| From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Listen / Notify rewrite |
| Date: | 2009-11-12 02:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4AFB712D.4080707@esilo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Premature optimization is the root of all evil ;-). Unless you've done
> some profiling and can show that this is a hot spot, making it more
> complicated isn't the thing to be doing now.
>
I'm thinking of how our system uses/abuses notifies, and began wondering
if several thousand backends listening with a large queue would perform
decently behind a linear search. At this point, I have no data either
way; only an assumption based off being burnt by sequential scans in the
past ;)
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-11-12 02:28:32 | Re: Listen / Notify rewrite |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-12 02:02:32 | Re: NULL-handling in aggregate(DISTINCT ...) |