| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: performance issue in remove_from_unowned_list() |
| Date: | 2019-03-13 12:12:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobHscKHVBLfZ0k43hXoq6vP8R5CB6i686jCZQtW7ASoaw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached is a patch adopting the dlist approach - it seems to be working
> quite fine, and is a bit cleaner than just slapping another pointer into
> the SMgrRelationData struct. So I'd say this is the way to go.
What about using a data structure that supports O(1) lookups for any element?
The current efforts all seem to revolve around correctly guessing from
which end of the list we are likely to delete stuff, but your research
suggests that we don't always make such guesses particularly well.
And it seems unnecessary.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-13 12:15:33 | Re: Using condition variables to wait for checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-03-13 12:03:46 | Fix handling of unlogged tables in FOR ALL TABLES publications |