> BTW, it appears to me that doing it this way is O(N^2) in the number > of active temp tables. So it's not hard to believe that the patch > as-presented would actually be a fairly serious performance drag for > some use cases with lots of temp tables. There are certainly ways > we could do better than that (hash table, bloom filter, etc) but > there would be even more engineering effort needed.
Yes, you're right. I also consider using like hash table to do more better and try to merge the in_use list and on_commits list into one hashtable. But, as just you said, it needs much more effort. Thanks any way. Regards, Jet Halo Tech (www.halodbtech.com) openHalo (www.openhalo.org)
