Hi Sergei, On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:35:09AM +0100, Sergei Golubchik wrote: > Hi, Sergey! > > On Nov 28, Sergey Vojtovich wrote: > > > Eh, that's what I was afraid of. Not seeing elements that were added at > > about > > the same time should always be acceptable. Can't it miss elements that were > > in the list before iteration started (because it has moved to a different > > location)? The latter is unacceptable in many cases. > > No, in this hash implementation elements are never moved in the list. > It's prety difficult to move elements lock-free, that's why it wasn't > easy to create a good performing lock-free hash. And this one works > around this problem by not moving elements at all. That's good.
> > > But let's see: > > - print_cached_tables() - old debug stuff, remove it? > > - I_S.OPEN_TABLES - seeing elements twice is not good, use PFS? > > Duplicates can be removed on the upper layer. Like, I_S data are > inserted into a temp table anyway, so a UNIQUE key would solve the issue > of duplicates. Or a Unique object. Ok, it is acceptable. This all makes your hash iterator good for MDL and table cache. Thanks, Sergey _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
