| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index build performance tweak from sorting |
| Date: | 2022-11-23 13:27:42 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-Ea422yDfj8McFRiGbpZxoU54Q+Xs0i2zN7Tmb=wQorzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 13:04, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> After getting rid of the HashInsertState code and just adding bool
> sorted to _hash_doinsert() and _hash_pgaddtup(), the resulting patch
> is much more simple:
Seems good to me and I wouldn't argue with any of your comments.
> and v4 includes 7 extra lines in hashinsert.c for the Assert() I
> mentioned in my previous email plus a bunch of extra comments.
Oh, I did already include that in v3 as requested.
> I'd rather see this solved like v4 is doing it.
Please do. No further comments. Thanks for your help
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-11-23 13:40:17 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-11-23 13:15:46 | Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans |