Re: notify duplicate elimination performance
От | Hardy Falk |
---|---|
Тема | Re: notify duplicate elimination performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52F69544.7080703@blue-cable.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: notify duplicate elimination performance (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane schrieb: > Hardy Falk <hardy.falk@blue-cable.de> writes: >>> Well, you didn't add any code, so it's hard to say... Simple ways of >>> doing what I think you describe will remove the queue's order. Do you >>> preserve the ordering guarantees? > >> Yes, the order is preserved. >> I didn't remove the the original list code. >> The tree is just an additional access path. > > It seems likely that this approach would be a net loss for small numbers > of notify events (which is surely the common case). Have you done any > measurements of the performance tradeoff? > > regards, tom lane > > I can easily keep the tail test. This avoids the hash computation in a common case. The tree search compares only uint32 values, this should be quite fast. Even a degenerate tree is no worse than the list. Im my first tests I didn't use murmurhash, a select pg_notify('alasys',format('Hello %s',x) from generate_series(1,1000000) as x triggered this worst case. With murmurhash2 the average search depth for 10^6 entries is 24.57. I am about to prepare a patch, should I do some performance tests with rtdsc first?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: