|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Here's a v3 incorporating Andres' idea of trying to avoid a separate
palloc for the list cell array. In a 64-bit machine we can have up
to five ListCells in the initial allocation without actually increasing
space consumption at all compared to the old code. So only when a List
grows larger than that do we need more than one palloc.
I'm still having considerable difficulty convincing myself that this
is enough of a win to justify the bug hazards we'll introduce, though.
On test cases like "pg_bench -S" it seems to be pretty much within the
noise level of being the same speed as HEAD. I did see a nice improvement
in the test case described in
but considering that that's still mostly a tight loop in
match_eclasses_to_foreign_key_col, it doesn't seem very interesting
as an overall figure of merit.
I wonder what test cases Andres has been looking at that convince
him that we need a reimplementation of Lists.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2019-03-02 23:48:30||Re: Online verification of checksums|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-03-02 22:29:49||Re: Proving IS NOT NULL inference for ScalarArrayOpExpr's|