On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:31 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com> wrote:
> w.r.t. Bharath's question on using hash table, I think the reason is that the search would be more efficient:
Generally, sequential search would be slower if there are many entries
in a list. Here, the use case is to store all the foreign table ids
associated with each foreign server and I'm not sure how many foreign
tables will be provided in a single truncate command that belong to
different foreign servers. I strongly feel the count will be less and
using a list would be easier than to have a hash table. Others may
have better opinions.
> Should the hash table be released at the end of ExecuteTruncateGuts() ?
If we go with a hash table and think that the frequency of "TRUNCATE"
commands on foreign tables is heavy in a local session, then it does
make sense to not destroy the hash, otherwise destroy the hash.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
