Re: unnecessary executor overheads around seqscans

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: unnecessary executor overheads around seqscans
Date: 2026-01-26 01:32:50
Message-ID: CAApHDvpc7ab5pTrfHtJo1FBVruCvUBq22FvrJvNwc1nau80WBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 at 04:36, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2026-01-24 19:36:08 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > I also noticed my compiler does not inline SeqNext(). Adding a
> > pg_attribute_always_inline results in it getting inlined and gives a
> > small speedup.
>
> Oh,m that's not good. I think we really had assumed that it would with the 18
> changes around this. It does here, but that's probably because I use -O3.

To reduce the variables here, I've pushed a fix for that after a quick
test showed a 3.9% speedup on a 1 million row table with a single int4
column filtering out all rows. I noticed that clang also didn't inline
with -O2. It does now.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gyan Sreejith 2026-01-26 01:38:00 Re: [Proposal] Adding Log File Capability to pg_createsubscriber
Previous Message Mihail Nikalayeu 2026-01-26 01:09:38 Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY