Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation
Date: 2011-09-21 16:35:41
Message-ID: CAM-w4HPw=A_weJVKpCHOTf-H9tu9AZNhY7Qfzf89-mnteuV8xA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> None of that stuff is inlinable or constant-foldable today, nor would it
> be with the patch that Peter was proposing AFAICS, because none of the
> flags will ever be compile time constant values.

I was referring to transformations like this which I believe compilers
are already capable of doing:

v = ...;
while (...)
if (v) {
if (a < b) ... else ....;
} else {
if (a > b) ... else ...;
}

turning it into code that looks like:

if (v) {
while (....)
if (a<b) ... else ...;
} else {
while (....)
if (a>b) ... else ...;
}

which may not look like much -- especially with branch prediction --
but then it's much more likely to be able to unroll the loop and do
clever instruction scheduling and so on than if there's an extra
branch in the middle of the loop. But if there's a function call to an
external function called through a function pointer in the middle of
the loop then the whole endeavour would be for naught.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-09-21 16:49:12 Re: Is there really no interest in SQL Standard?
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-09-21 16:34:24 Re: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load