Re: Missing free_var() at end of accum_sum_final()?

> On 20.02.23 23:16, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> > In the new attached patch, Andres fixed buffer idea has been implemented
> > throughout the entire numeric.c code base.
>

I have been going over this patch, and IMO it's far too invasive for
the fairly modest performance gains (and performance regressions in
some cases) that it gives (which seem to be somewhat smaller on my
machine).

One code change that I am particularly opposed to is changing all the
low-level functions like add_var(), mul_var(), etc., so that they no
longer accept the result being the same variable as any of the inputs.
That is a particularly convenient thing to be able to do, and without
it, various functions become more complex and less readable, and have
to resort to using more temporary variables.

I actually find the whole business of attaching a static buffer and
new buf_len fields to NumericVar quite ugly, and the associated extra
complexity in alloc_var(), free_var(), zero_var(), and
set_var_from_var() is all part of that. Now that might be worth it, if
this gave significant performance gains across the board, but the
trouble is it doesn't. AFAICS, it seems to be just as likely to
degrade performance. For example:

SELECT sqrt(6*sum(1/x/x)) FROM generate_series(1::numeric
,10000000::numeric) g(x);

is consistently 1-2% slower for me, with this patch. That's not much,
but then neither are most of the gains. In a lot of cases, it's so
close to the level of noise that I don't think most users will notice
one way or the other.

So IMO the results just don't justify such an extensive set of
changes, and I think we should abandon this fixed buffer approach.

Having said that, I think the results from the COPY test are worth
looking at more closely. Your results seem to suggest around a 5%
improvement. On my machine it was only around 3%, but that still might
be worth having, if it didn't involve such invasive changes throughout
the rest of the code.

As an experiment, I took another look at my earlier patch, making
make_result() construct the result using the same allocated memory as
the variable's digit buffer (if allocated). That eliminates around a
third of all free_var() calls from numeric.c, and for most functions,
it saves both a palloc() and a pfree(). In the case of numeric_in(), I
realised that it's possible to go further, by reusing the decimal
digits buffer for the NumericVar's digits, and then later for the
final Numeric result. Also, by carefully aligning things, it's
possible to arrange it so that the final make_result() doesn't need to
copy/move the digits at all. With that I get something closer to a 15%
improvement in the COPY test, which is definitely worth having.

In the pi series above, it gave a 3-4% performance improvement, and
that seemed to be a common pattern across a number of other tests.
It's also a much less invasive change, since it's only really changing
make_result(), which makes the knock-on effects much more manageable,
and reduces the chances of any performance regressions.

I didn't do all the tests that you did though, so it would be
interesting to see how it fares in those.

Regards,
Dean