"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> The worst that can happen, is a hash collision, in which case you lose
>> the benefits of sync scans, but you wont degrade compared to non-sync
>> scans
> But it could cause "mysterious" performance regressions, no?
There are other issues for the "no lock" approach that Jeff proposes.
Suppose that we have three or four processes that are actually doing
synchronized scans of the same table. They will have current block
numbers that are similar but probably not identical. They will all be
scribbling on the same hashtable location. So if another process comes
along to join the "pack", it might get the highest active block number,
or the lowest, or something in between. Even discounting the possibility
that it gets random bits because it managed to read the value
non-atomically, how well is that really going to work?
Another thing that we have to consider is that the actual block read
requests will likely be distributed among the "pack leaders", rather
than all being issued by one process. AFAIK this will destroy the
kernel's ability to do read-ahead, because it will fail to recognize
that sequential reads are being issued --- any single process is *not*
reading sequentially, and I think that read-ahead scheduling is
generally driven off single-process behavior rather than the emergent
behavior of the whole system. (Feel free to contradict me if you've
actually read any kernel code that does this.) It might still be better
than unsynchronized reads, but it'd be leaving a lot on the table.
regards, tom lane