Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 21:09 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> A quick fix would be to check if there's any entries in the hash table
>> before scanning it. That would eliminate the overhead when there's no
>> in-progress transactions in the master. But as soon as there's even one,
>> the overhead comes back.
> 
> Any fix should be fairly quick because of the way its modularised - with
> something like this in mind.
> 
> I'll try a circular buffer implementation, with fastpath.

I started experimenting with a sorted array based implementation on
Tuesday but got carried away with other stuff. I now got back to that
and cleaned it up.

How does the attached patch look like? It's probably similar to what you
had in mind.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com