On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:15 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:14 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> > wrote: > > Here you can see that as numsnaps increases, the test becomes slower, > > but then it becomes faster again at 64-66, when it switches to the hash > > table. So 64 seems too much. 32 seems to be the sweet spot here, that's > > where scanning the hash and scanning the array are about the same speed. > > That sounds good. I mean, it could be that not all hardware behaves > the same here. But trying to get it into the right ballpark makes > sense. > > I also like the fact that this now has some cases where it wins by a > significant margin. That's pretty cool; thanks for working on it! > > -- > Robert Haas > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > The patchset does not apply successfully, there are some hunk failures. http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2834.log v6-0002-Make-resowners-more-easily-extensible.patch 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/utils/cache/plancache.c.rej 2 out of 15 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/utils/resowner/resowner.c.rej Can we get a rebase? I am marking the patch "Waiting on Author" -- Ibrar Ahmed
