On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 08:51 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I am not quite sure this kind of cache best lives in simplehash -
> ISTM that
> quite often it'd be more beneficial to have a cache that you can test
> more
> cheaply higher up.
Yeah. I suppose when a few more callers are likely to benefit
Hi,
On 2023-11-20 22:37:47 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 22:50 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > I'm mostly thinking out loud here, but could we just always do this?
> > I
> > guess you might want to avoid it if your SH_EQUAL is particularly
> > expensive
> > and you know repeat
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:37:47PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how often it's a good idea to turn it
> on, though. I could try turning it on for various other uses of
> simplehash, and see where it tends to win.
That seems worthwhile to me.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 22:50 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I'm mostly thinking out loud here, but could we just always do this?
> I
> guess you might want to avoid it if your SH_EQUAL is particularly
> expensive
> and you know repeated lookups are rare, but maybe that's uncommon
> enough
> that we
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 06:12:47PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The caller could do something similar, so this option is not necessary,
> but it seems like it could be generally useful. It speeds things up for
> the search_path cache (and is an alternative to another patch I have
> that implements th
