Hi,
On 2023-07-10 12:14:46 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > /*
> > - * Initially allocated size of a ResourceArray. Must be power of two since
> > - * we'll use (arraysize - 1) as mask for hashing.
> > + * Size of the fixed-size array to hold most-recently remembered resources.
> > */
> > -#define RESARRAY_INIT_SIZE 16
> > +#define RESOWNER_ARRAY_SIZE 32
>
> That's 512 bytes, pretty large to be searched sequentially. It's somewhat sad
> that the array needs to include 8 byte of ResourceOwnerFuncs...
On that note:
It's perhaps worth noting that this change actually *increases* the size of
ResourceOwnerData. Previously:
/* size: 576, cachelines: 9, members: 19 */
/* sum members: 572, holes: 1, sum holes: 4 */
now:
/* size: 696, cachelines: 11, members: 13 */
/* sum members: 693, holes: 1, sum holes: 3 */
It won't make a difference memory-usage wise, given aset.c's rounding
behaviour. But it does mean that more memory needs to be zeroed, as
ResourceOwnerCreate() uses MemoryContextAllocZero.
As there's really no need to initialize the long ->arr, ->locks, it seems
worth to just initialize explicitly instead of using MemoryContextAllocZero().
With the new representation, is there any point in having ->locks? We still
need ->nlocks to be able to switch to the lossy behaviour, but there doesn't
seem to be much point in having the separate array.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
