On 11/19/2010 05:22 PM, Sergey Vojtovich wrote:
> Magne,
>
> ok, do you think it is worth to consider that we may rework
> this part sooner or later and make less intrusive patch?
Hi Sergey / Mattias
I'm not entirely sure I follow you. What the patch does is
simply to exchange one data structure with another. Since the
container classes in mysql doesn't provide a common interface,
there is a need to change some code. Most of the code change
is in peripheral functions (mi_panic, debugging, etc.), where
there is a need to traverse all stored objects. I also had to
do some extra initialization, since the MyISAM code is also used
directly from supporting tools, which does not use the
handlerton.
I feel that this solution is fairly good, as a trade-off
between speed, complexity and implementation risk. It is
entirely possible to get an even faster lookup mechanism
than this, but I feel it's not worth the extra effort. The
benchmarking we did, show a tremendous(!) improvement over the
old implementation (see my _private_ entry on the bug report
page, dated Sep. 30th)
Since WL#4305 isn't, to my knowledge, started on yet, it means
the impact on that work is minimal. What is absolutely certain
is that we won't be using the old iterate-and-compare-name-string
approach in that worklog, so I believe something like my patch
will naturally find its place in that code.
Of course, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the code,
and other approaches. I am, however, reluctant to have code
living in my sandbox, while waiting for a worklog that has
unknown priority, and might even be stopped (not that I
have any indications on that happening :)
So - to sum it up -- I'm, of course, very eager to get this
patch in. I'm, on the other hand, ready to accept it if it is
thought to be a bad idea :)
--Magne
