Feb 5, 2025

I've completed evaluations of consolidation of the point and spend tables. Turns out this is a bust on both big and small boxes. It takes about 1.5x on the big box, even before becoming memory bound. The extra time is spent in comparisons of search keys. This amounts to memory I/O to perform the comparisons (not even paging because the entire store is memory resident). One of the advantages of splitting the tables was to make search against either of them less costly due to reduced paging and increased locality, despite it taking about 20GiB more space when not utilizing hash consolidation. Turns out that's a significant benefit. On the mini the performance hit is the same up until thrashing kicks in. So I'll stick this work in a dead branch and revert, while cherry picking a couple of small improvements.