Re: Faster "SET search_path"

On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 17:13 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Will commit 0005 soon.

Committed.

> I also attached a trivial 0006 patch that uses SH_STORE_HASH. I
> wasn't
> able to show much benefit, though, even when there's a bucket
> collision. Perhaps there just aren't enough elements to matter -- I
> suppose there would be a benefit if there are lots of unique
> search_path strings, but that doesn't seem very plausible to me. If
> someone thinks it's worth committing, then I will, but I don't see
> any
> real upside or downside.

I tried again by forcing a hash table with ~25 entries and 13
collisions, and even then, SH_STORE_HASH didn't make a difference in my
test. Maybe a microbenchmark would show a difference, but I didn't see
much reason to commit 0006. (There's also no downside, so I was tempted
to commit it just so I wouldn't have to put more thought into whether
it's a problem or not.)

Regards,
Jeff Davis