Re: Fastpath while arranging the changes in LSN order in logical decoding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Fastpath while arranging the changes in LSN order in logical decoding
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-vBOiqsh6iUc0pdxJSh9D-NEpHLYhjCLs3=x5W=k+98xg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fastpath while arranging the changes in LSN order in logicaldecoding  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Fastpath while arranging the changes in LSN order in logical decoding  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:30 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-01-08 18:06:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 5:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > > On 25/11/2019 05:52, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > > In logical decoding, while sending the changes to the output plugin we
> > > > need to arrange them in the LSN order.  But, if there is only one
> > > > transaction which is a very common case then we can avoid building the
> > > > binary heap.  A small patch is attached for the same.
> > >
> > > Does this make any measurable performance difference? Building a
> > > one-element binary heap seems pretty cheap.
> >
> >
> > I haven’t really measured the performance for this.  I will try to do that
> > next week.  Thanks for looking into this.
>
> Did you do that?

I tried once in my local machine but could not produce consistent
results.  I will try this once again in the performance machine and
report back.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: More tests to stress directly checksum_impl.h