Horton

Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-11-17T22:08:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Silence warning in older versions of Valgrind

  2. Revert "Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two"

  3. Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two

  4. Teach fasthash_accum to use platform endianness for bytewise loads

  5. Add macro to disable address safety instrumentation

  6. Convert uses of hash_string_pointer to fasthash equivalent

  7. Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings

  8. Add helper functions for dshash tables with string keys.

  9. Fix warnings in cpluspluscheck

  10. Further cosmetic review of hashfn_unstable.h

  11. Simplify initialization of incremental hash state

  12. Add optimized C string hashing

  13. Add inline incremental hash functions for in-memory use

  14. Make all Perl warnings fatal

Hi,

On 2023-11-17 13:44:21 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 13:22 -0800, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > This is not a comment on the patch itself, but since GUC operations
> > are not typically considered performance or space sensitive,

I don't think that's quite right - we have a lot of GUCs and they're loaded in
each connection. And there's set/reset around transactions etc. So even
without search path stuff that Jeff mentioned, it could be worth optimizing
this.


> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. simplehash is newer and has a nicer
> API, so if we like it and want to move more code over, this is one
> step. But if we are fine using both hsearch.h and simplehash.h for
> overlapping use cases indefinitely, then I'll drop this.

Right now there are use cases where simplehash isn't really usable (if stable
pointers to hash elements are needed and/or the entries are very large). I've
been wondering about providing a layer ontop of simplehash, or an option to
simplehash, providing that though.  That then could perhaps also implement
runtime defined key sizes.

I think this would be a completely fair thing to port over - whether it's
worth it I don't quite know, but I'd not be against it on principle or such.

Greetings,

Andres Freund