Re: [PATCH] Optimize json_lex_string by batching character copying

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jelte Fennema <Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize json_lex_string by batching character copying
Date: 2022-08-23 06:03:03
Message-ID: CAFBsxsEDR6GctRTayurcGyR6d3GDjv0XGBqArPvrbO3H38T6Jg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:32 AM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 02:22:29PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:35:34AM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> >> Not at all! However, the 32-bit-element changes are irrelevant for
> >> json, and make review more difficult. I would suggest keeping those in
> >> the other thread starting with whatever refactoring is needed. I can
> >> always rebase over that.
> >
> > Yeah, I'll remove those to keep this thread focused.
>
> Here's a new version of the patch with the 32-bit changes and calls to
> lfind() removed.

LGTM overall. My plan is to split out the json piece, adding tests for
that, and commit the infrastructure for it fairly soon. Possible
bikeshedding: Functions like vector8_eq() might be misunderstood as
comparing two vectors, but here we are comparing each lane with a
scalar. I wonder if vector8_eq_scalar() et al might be more clear.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2022-08-23 06:06:27 Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits
Previous Message Andrey Lepikhov 2022-08-23 05:58:22 Re: Fast COPY FROM based on batch insert