Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations areaccessed in a transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations areaccessed in a transaction
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f-=wBq7kXbyLQJ3Lw+=K0ZmSOPwb6YFxx1Y1LVHu_ffog@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations areaccessed in a transaction  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 15:47, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> OTOH, how about my original patch that is based on the local lock list?  I expect that it won't that significant
slowdownin the same test case.  If it's not satisfactory, then v6 is the best to commit.
 

I think we need to move beyond the versions that have been reviewed
and rejected. I don't think the reasons for their rejection will have
changed.

I've attached v7, which really is v6 with some comments adjusted and
the order of the hash_get_num_entries and hash_get_max_bucket function
calls swapped.  I think hash_get_num_entries() will return 0 most of
the time where we're calling it, so it makes sense to put the
condition that's less likely to be true first in the if condition.

I'm pretty happy with v7 now. If anyone has any objections to it,
please speak up very soon.  Otherwise, I plan to push it about this
time tomorrow.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb recommendations