Re: notify duplicate elimination performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hardy Falk <hardy(dot)falk(at)blue-cable(dot)de>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: notify duplicate elimination performance
Date: 2014-02-08 19:35:20
Message-ID: 17322.1391888120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hardy Falk <hardy(dot)falk(at)blue-cable(dot)de> writes:
>> Well, you didn't add any code, so it's hard to say... Simple ways of
>> doing what I think you describe will remove the queue's order. Do you
>> preserve the ordering guarantees?

> Yes, the order is preserved.
> I didn't remove the the original list code.
> The tree is just an additional access path.

It seems likely that this approach would be a net loss for small numbers
of notify events (which is surely the common case). Have you done any
measurements of the performance tradeoff?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2014-02-08 19:35:32 Re: Changeset Extraction v7.5
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-02-08 18:30:27 Re: notify duplicate elimination performance