On 2023-Nov-06, Dilip Kumar wrote: > Yeah so we can see with a small bank size <=16 slots we are seeing > that the fetching page with hash is 30% slower than the sequential > search, but beyond 32 slots sequential search is become slower as you > grow the number of slots whereas with hash it stays constant as > expected. But now as you told if keep the lock partition range > different than the bank size then we might not have any problem by > having more numbers of banks and with that, we can keep the bank size > small like 16. Let me put some more thought into this and get back. > Any other opinions on this?
dynahash is notoriously slow, which is why we have simplehash.h since commit b30d3ea824c5. Maybe we could use that instead. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Escucha y olvidarás; ve y recordarás; haz y entenderás" (Confucio)
