Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe it's time to convert that to a doubly-linked list.
> I don't think that would help. You would need some heuristic to guess
> whether the chunk you are looking for is near the front, or near the end.
Uh, what? In a doubly-linked list, you can remove an element in O(1)
time, you don't need any searching. It basically becomes
item->prev->next = item->next;
item->next->prev = item->prev;
modulo possible special cases for the head and tail elements.
>> Although if the
>> hash code is producing a whole lot of requests that are only a bit bigger
>> than the separate-block threshold, I'd say It's Doing It Wrong. It should
>> learn to aggregate them into larger requests.
> Right now it is using compiled-in 32KB chunks. Should it use something
> like max(32kb,work_mem/128) instead?
I'd say it should double the size of the request each time. That's what
we do in most places.
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
