On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-05-31 13:27:28 -0400, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Well, SH_TYPE's members SH_ELEMENT_TYPE *data and void *private_data
>> > are not going to work in DSM, because they are pointers. You can
>> > doubtless come up with a way around that problem, but I guess the
>> > question is whether that's actually any better than just using DHT.
>>
>> Probably I misunderstood the question. I assumed that we need to bring
>> in DHT only for achieving this goal. But, if the question is simply
>> the comparison of DHT vs simplehash for this particular case then I
>> agree that DHT is a more appropriate choice.
>
> Yea, I don't think simplehash is the best choice here. It's worthwhile
> to use it for performance critical bits, but using it for everything
> would just increase code size without much benefit. I'd tentatively
> assume that anonymous record type aren't going to be super common, and
> that this is going to be the biggest bottleneck if you use them.
Did you mean "not going to be"?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company