| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Shubham Khanna <khannashubham1197(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer |
| Date: | 2024-04-10 17:14:16 |
| Message-ID: | 9c7f66fadea820bba375540ef80a402fdcf5b642.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 08:30 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> My #1 choice would be to write a patch to switch the pairing heap,
> performance test that, and revert the binary heap changes.
Sounds good to me. I would expect it to perform better than the extra
hash table, if anything.
It also has the advantage that we don't change the API for binaryheap
in 17.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-10 17:15:56 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-10 17:12:21 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |