At Thu, 03 Mar 2022 01:35:57 +0300, Yura Sokolov <y.soko...@postgrespro.ru>
wrote in
> В Вт, 01/03/2022 в 10:24 +0300, Yura Sokolov пишет:
> > Ok, here is v4.
>
> And here is v5.
>
> First, there was compilation error in Assert in dynahash.c .
> Excuse me for not checking before sending previous version.
>
> Second, I add third commit that reduces HASHHDR allocation
> size for non-partitioned dynahash:
> - moved freeList to last position
> - alloc and memset offset(HASHHDR, freeList[1]) for
> non-partitioned hash tables.
> I didn't benchmarked it, but I will be surprised if it
> matters much in performance sence.
>
> Third, I put all three commits into single file to not
> confuse commitfest application.
Thanks! I looked into dynahash part.
struct HASHHDR
{
- /*
- * The freelist can become a point of contention in high-concurrency
hash
Why did you move around the freeList?
- long nentries; /* number of entries in
associated buckets */
+ long nfree; /* number of free entries in
the list */
+ long nalloced; /* number of entries initially
allocated for
Why do we need nfree? HASH_ASSING should do the same thing with
HASH_REMOVE. Maybe the reason is the code tries to put the detached
bucket to different free list, but we can just remember the
freelist_idx for the detached bucket as we do for hashp. I think that
should largely reduce the footprint of this patch.
-static void hdefault(HTAB *hashp);
+static void hdefault(HTAB *hashp, bool partitioned);
That optimization may work even a bit, but it is not irrelevant to
this patch?
+ case HASH_REUSE:
+ if (currBucket != NULL)
+ {
+ /* check there is no unfinished
HASH_REUSE+HASH_ASSIGN pair */
+ Assert(DynaHashReuse.hashp == NULL);
+ Assert(DynaHashReuse.element == NULL);
I think all cases in the switch(action) other than HASH_ASSIGN needs
this assertion and no need for checking both, maybe only for element
would be enough.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
