> > > I think we could add a local backend copy that stays up to date with the > > > DSA. One idea would be to use an atomic counter to track the number of > > > entries in the DSA and compare it with a local backend counter whenever > > > the > > > tranche name lookup occurs. If the atomic counter is higher (since we > > > don't have deletions), > > > we can update the local copy. Updating the local table should be a > > > rare occurrence, but it would > > > require an additional atomic fetch every time the name lookup occurs, in > > > all the > > > above code paths. > > > > > > Perhaps there's a better approach? > > > > I was thinking to switch to the DSA (and update local copy) when a name is > > not found in the local copy. That way there is no need to maintain a > > counter and > > the DSA overhead should be rare enough. > > > > Regards, > > That should work as well. good idea.
With a local hash table, I don't think it's necessary to introduce new code for managing a DSA based list of tranche names as is done in v3. We can go back to storing the shared trance names in dshash. What do you think? -- Sami
