Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie oct 29 14:15:55 -0300 2010:
>> samples % symbol name
>> 447433 47.1553 get_tabstat_entry
> Is there a reason for keeping the pgstat info in plain lists?
Yeah: anything else loses for small numbers of tables per query, which
is the normal case. I'd guess you'd need ~100 tables touched in
a single transaction before a hashtable is even worth thinking about.
We could possibly adopt a solution similar to the planner's approach for
joinrels: start with a simple list, and switch over to hashing if the
list gets too long. But I'm really doubtful that it's worth the code
space. Even with Zoltan's 500-or-so-table case, this wasn't on the
radar screen.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
