Re: ResourceOwner refactoring

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:15 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:14 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> wrote:
> > Here you can see that as numsnaps increases, the test becomes slower,
> > but then it becomes faster again at 64-66, when it switches to the hash
> > table. So 64 seems too much. 32 seems to be the sweet spot here, that's
> > where scanning the hash and scanning the array are about the same speed.
>
> That sounds good. I mean, it could be that not all hardware behaves
> the same here. But trying to get it into the right ballpark makes
> sense.
>
> I also like the fact that this now has some cases where it wins by a
> significant margin. That's pretty cool; thanks for working on it!
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
>
The patchset does not apply successfully, there are some hunk failures.

http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2834.log

v6-0002-Make-resowners-more-easily-extensible.patch

1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/backend/utils/cache/plancache.c.rej
2 out of 15 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/backend/utils/resowner/resowner.c.rej

Can we get a rebase?

I am marking the patch "Waiting on Author"

--
Ibrar Ahmed