On May 31, 2017 11:28:18 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> >wrote: >> On 2017-05-31 13:27:28 -0400, Dilip Kumar wrote: >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Robert Haas ><robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Well, SH_TYPE's members SH_ELEMENT_TYPE *data and void >*private_data >>> > are not going to work in DSM, because they are pointers. You can >>> > doubtless come up with a way around that problem, but I guess the >>> > question is whether that's actually any better than just using >DHT. >>> >>> Probably I misunderstood the question. I assumed that we need to >bring >>> in DHT only for achieving this goal. But, if the question is simply >>> the comparison of DHT vs simplehash for this particular case then I >>> agree that DHT is a more appropriate choice. >> >> Yea, I don't think simplehash is the best choice here. It's >worthwhile >> to use it for performance critical bits, but using it for everything >> would just increase code size without much benefit. I'd tentatively >> assume that anonymous record type aren't going to be super common, >and >> that this is going to be the biggest bottleneck if you use them. > >Did you mean "not going to be"?
Err, yes. Thanks -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
