Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: 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 14:50:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 21.09.2011 17:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Even still, I
>> think that the 12.5% figure is pretty pessimistic - I've already sped
>> up the dell store query by almost that much, and that's with a patch
>> that was, due to circumstances, cobbled together.

> I'm not against making things faster, it's just that I haven't seen 
> solid evidence yet that this will help. Just provide a best-case test 
> case for this that shows a huge improvement, and I'll shut up. If the 
> improvement is only modest, then let's discuss how big it is and whether 
> it's worth the code ugliness this causes.

The other question that I'm going to be asking is whether it's not
possible to get most of the same improvement with a much smaller code
footprint.  I continue to suspect that getting rid of the SQL function
impedance-match layer (myFunctionCall2Coll etc) would provide most of
whatever gain is to be had here, without nearly as large a cost in code
size and maintainability, and with the extra benefit that the speedup
would also be available to non-core datatypes.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-09-21 15:03:15
Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation
Previous:From: Linas VirbalasDate: 2011-09-21 14:44:30
Subject: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group