Re: Memory Alignment in Postgres

From: "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Arthur Silva <arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Memory Alignment in Postgres
Date: 2014-09-11 18:39:16
Message-ID: 20140911183916.GM11672@aart.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:54:36PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
> Indeed I don't know any other architectures that this would be at an
> option. So if this ever moves forward it must be turned on at compile time
> for x86-64 only. I wonder how the Mysql handle their rows even on those
> architectures as their storage format is completely packed.
>
> If we just reduced the alignment requirements when laying out columns in
> the rows and indexes by reducing/removing padding -- typalign, it'd be
> enough gain in my (humble) opinion.
>
> If you think alignment is not an issue you can see saving everywhere, which
> is kinda insane...
>
> I'm unsure how this equates in patch complexity, but judging by the
> reactions so far I'm assuming a lot.

If the column order in the table was independent of the physical layout,
it would be possible to order columns to reduce the padding needed. Not
my suggestion, just repeating a valid comment from earlier in the thread.

Regards,
Ken

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-09-11 19:05:07 Re: about half processes are blocked by btree, btree is bottleneck?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-09-11 18:37:47 Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)