Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4272.1304366554@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c? (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I did a bit of testing of this and committed it with minor adjustments. > Thanks for the attribution -- I hardly deserved it. One question > though: ALLOC_CHUNK_FRACTION was put to four with the language 'We > allow chunks to be at most 1/4 of maxBlockSize'. > further down we have: > "+ * too. For the typical case of maxBlockSize a power of 2, the chunk size > + * limit will be at most 1/8th maxBlockSize, so that given a stream of > + * requests that are all the maximum chunk size we will waste at most > + * 1/8th of the allocated space." > Is this because the divide by 2 right shift halves the amount of > wasted space, so that the maximum waste is in fact half again the > fraction? No, it's the overhead. The patch as you submitted it was forcing allocChunkSize down to 512, because after subtracting off the per-malloc-block overhead and the per-palloc-chunk overhead, it came to the (correct) conclusion that 1024 didn't quite fit 8 times into 8192. I thought that was probably excessive, so I backed off the fraction. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: