On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I didn't like it; it seemed overly complicated (consider dealing with
> XID wraparound),
We are talking about subtransactions here. I don't think we support
subtransaction wrap-around, do we ?
> and it would have problems with a slow transaction
> generating a sparse set of subtransaction XIDs.
I agree thats the worst case. But is that common ? Thats what I
was thinking when I proposed the alternate solution. I thought that can
happen only if most of the subtransactions abort, which again I thought
is not a normal case. But frankly I am not sure if my assumption is correct.
> I think getting rid of
> the linear search will be enough to fix the performance problem.
>
I wonder if a skewed binary search would help more ? For example,
if we know that the range of xids stored in the array is 1 to 1000 and
if we are searching for a number closer to 1000, we can break the
array into <large,small> parts instead of equal parts and then
search.
Well, may be I making simple things complicated ;-)
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
