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)