| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-16 14:39:52 |
| Message-ID: | 8919.1271428792@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I didn't handle xid wraparound correctly in the binary search, need to use
> TransactionIdFollows instead of plan >.
I think you're outsmarting yourself there. A binary search will in fact
*not work* with circular xid comparison (this is exactly why there's no
btree opclass for XID). You need to use plain >, and make sure the
array you're searching is ordered that way too. The other way might
accidentally fail to malfunction if you only tested ranges of XIDs that
weren't long enough to wrap around, but that doesn't make it right.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-16 14:52:49 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-16 12:00:22 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |