Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Attached is revision of my patch with some clean-ups.
> One thing I'm starting to get a bit concerned about is the effect of
> this patch on the size of the resulting binary.
Regardless of that, I'm still of the opinion that this patch is
fundamentally misdesigned. The way it's set up, it is only possible to
have a fast path for types that are hard-wired into tuplesort.c, and
that flies in the face of twenty years' worth of effort to make Postgres
an extensible system. I really don't care about performance
measurements: this is not an acceptable design, period.
What I want to see is some mechanism that pushes this out to the
individual datatypes, so that both core and plug-in datatypes have
access to the benefits. There are a number of ways that could be
attacked, but the most obvious one is to invent additional, optional
support function(s) for btree opclasses.
I also still think that we should pursue the idea of a lower-overhead
API for comparison functions. It may be that it's worth the code bulk
to have an inlined copy of qsort for a small number of high-usage
datatypes, but I think there are going to be a lot for which we aren't
going to want to pay that price, and yet we could get some benefit from
cutting the call overhead. A lower-overhead API would also save cycles
in usage of the comparison functions from btree itself (remember that?).
I think in particular that the proposed approach to multiple sort keys
is bogus and should be replaced by just using lower-overhead
comparators. The gain per added code byte in doing it as proposed
has got to be too low to be reasonable.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2011-12-02 01:29:56|
|Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2011-12-02 00:56:01|
|Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?|