Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Atri Sharma
Тема Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption
Дата
Msg-id CAOeZVicWD9a-FV2ZZnjO=2vV-ch5QAOijV6KjVdH994CAn07hw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
Ответы Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>)
Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  ("Tomas Vondra" <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi Tomas,


>> Consider the aspects associated with open addressing.Open addressing
>> can quickly lead to growth in the main table.Also, chaining is a much
>> cleaner way of collision resolution,IMHO.
>
> What do you mean by "growth in the main table"?

Sorry, I should have been more verbose.

AFAIK, Open addressing can be slower with a load factor approaching 1
as compared to chaining. Also, I feel that implementation of open
addressing can be more complicated as we have to deal with deletes
etc.

I feel we can redesign our current chaining mechanism to have skip
lists instead of singly linked lists. I experimented with it sometime
back and I feel that it gives a stable performance with higher loads.

Regards,

Atri



-- 
Regards,

Atri
l'apprenant



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Patch: FORCE_NULL option for copy COPY in CSV mode
Следующее
От: Claudio Freire
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption