Re: Boundary value check in lazy_tid_reaped()

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Boundary value check in lazy_tid_reaped()
Date: 2020-09-08 19:33:32
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=eWfq6qTtWd5j1QtyLL2AWYtF9_bJa61xE5wWHnZOsjQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I wonder if you would also see a speed-up with a bsearch() replacement
> > > that is inlineable, so it can inline the comparator (instead of
> > > calling it through a function pointer). I wonder if something more
> > > like (lblk << 32 | loff) - (rblk << 32 | roff) would go faster than
> > > the branchy comparator.
> >
> > Erm, off course that expression won't work... should be << 16, but
> > even then it would only work with a bsearch that uses int64_t
> > comparators, so I take that part back.
>
> Yeah, it seems to worth benchmarking the speed-up with an inlining.
> I'll do some performance tests with/without inlining on top of
> checking boundary values.

It sounds like Thomas was talking about something like
itemptr_encode() + itemptr_decode(). In case you didn't know, we
actually do something like this for the TID tuplesort used for CREATE
INDEX CONCURRENTLY.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-09-08 19:51:26 Re: pg_ls_tmpdir to show directories and shared filesets (and pg_ls_*)
Previous Message Christoph Berg 2020-09-08 19:33:26 Re: Collation versioning