On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Andres Freund <and...@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 <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
