| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce memory overheads for storing a Memoize tuple |
| Date: | 2026-08-05 05:23:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpsZS=TyC3kRx1B2etSHxevgmoGjhXoR3U2O3rv=vHSVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 16:52, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The optimized data structure looks good to me. The test result on my side exactly matches yours: 3583kB vs. 2801kB. I had to turn off hash join, otherwise the planner always chose a parallel hash join.
Thanks for looking and checking.
> I have only one nitpick. MAXALIGN(sizeof(MinimalTuple)) appears 4 times. Would it make sense to define a macro for it, say MEMOIZE_TUPLE_LINK_SIZE?
Good idea. Here's a new patch with that adjustment made.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Reduce-memory-overheads-for-storing-a-Memoize-tup.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ayush Tiwari | 2026-08-05 05:23:58 | Backup manifests accept out-of-range LSNs |
| Previous Message | Koshino Taiki | 2026-08-05 05:17:08 | Define MXID acronym in documentation |