On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:14 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > Here you can see that as numsnaps increases, the test becomes slower, > but then it becomes faster again at 64-66, when it switches to the hash > table. So 64 seems too much. 32 seems to be the sweet spot here, that's > where scanning the hash and scanning the array are about the same speed.
That sounds good. I mean, it could be that not all hardware behaves the same here. But trying to get it into the right ballpark makes sense. I also like the fact that this now has some cases where it wins by a significant margin. That's pretty cool; thanks for working on it! -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
