Hello, John !

> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Nickolay Samofatov wrote:
>
> > Hello Jim,
> >
> > Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 10:34:17 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >> Having been through the "hoard" paper and thought about it some,
> >> I don't think it has much to offer a multi-threaded database
> >> server.
> >
> >> [...]
> > You are wrong, at least partially. Let's consider simple case:
> > You have 4 heaps A, B, C and D. Even in worst case when memory is
> > distributed evenly between threads and heaps if you lock heap D to
> > deallocate some memory heaps A, B and C can still be freely used
> > for both allocation and deallocation.
> >
> > [...]
>
> And to throw my 2 cents in this conversation, the new memory code in
> FB2 already allows for arbitrary memory pool hierarchies. Just using
> that existing ability might be enough to eliminate most of the
> contention, without going through the effort of switching memory
> managers.

Yes. There will be minimum contention when we will be adding multithreading
to FB2.
I have a plan how to make CS version multithreaded. It includes usage of
thread-local
memory pool. It will reduce thread contention to a very small amount.

>
> -John

Nickolay Samofatov