From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: remove useless ccache searching |
Date: | 2011-09-05 18:42:31 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC33hLzd7GZr1CoH22BFb2r_3uETyibOzBguLqpSQPNWw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
2011/9/5 Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>:
> This patch:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=597
>
> caches the cache because, I guess, the cache is slow.
>
> Simon asked, "What is making the first cache so slow?". Pavel does not
> know, nor how to fix it, and nobody else responded.
>
> So my question is: is someone going to take a look at the cache? Should
> this be accepted as a short term fix (cuz someone will fix the cache later),
> long term fix (cuz the cache needs to say as-is), or not at all (because
> someone will fix cache right now now)?
A idea so this patch is cache of cache is not exact
Access to array needs lot of metadata related to element type. These
metadata are statics. I can store these data when we first access a
variable with data. ccache is relative fast - hash search, but should
not be faster than just direct access to structure. This technique is
used more time in PL/pgSQL.
Regards
Pavel
>
> -Andy
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2011-09-05 18:44:11 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-09-05 18:36:21 | Re: Couple document fixes |