On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:31 PM Zhihong Yu <z...@yugabyte.com> wrote: > w.r.t. Bharath's question on using hash table, I think the reason is that the > search would be more efficient:
Generally, sequential search would be slower if there are many entries in a list. Here, the use case is to store all the foreign table ids associated with each foreign server and I'm not sure how many foreign tables will be provided in a single truncate command that belong to different foreign servers. I strongly feel the count will be less and using a list would be easier than to have a hash table. Others may have better opinions. > Should the hash table be released at the end of ExecuteTruncateGuts() ? If we go with a hash table and think that the frequency of "TRUNCATE" commands on foreign tables is heavy in a local session, then it does make sense to not destroy the hash, otherwise destroy the hash. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
