Re: Avoid using lcons and list_delete_first in plan_union_children()

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Avoid using lcons and list_delete_first in plan_union_children()
Date: 2020-12-01 16:17:24
Message-ID: f76c16ad-fd0a-191a-19b5-c899180a11bf@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/12/2020 12:52, Hou, Zhijie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In function plan_union_children(),
> I found the lcons and list_delete_first here is easy to be replaced by lappend and list_delete_last.
>
> And I also found a previous commit do similar thing, so I try to improve this one.
>
> Previous commit:
> d97b714a219959a50f9e7b37ded674f5132f93f3

This doesn't matter much in practice. I was able to measure a
performance difference with a very extreme example: "SELECT 1 UNION
SELECT 2 UNION ... UNION SELECT 10000". That was about 30% faster with
this patch.

I don't see any downside, though. And like the commit message of
d97b714a21, it's better to have good examples than bad ones in the code
base, if someone copy-pastes it to somewhere where it matters.

But then again, I'm not excited about changing these one by one. If this
is worth changing, what about the one in simplify_or_arguments()? Or in
CopyMultiInsertInfoFlush()?

Perhaps it would make sense to invent a new Queue abstraction for this.
Or maybe it would be overkill..

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2020-12-01 16:21:11 Re: Confusing behavior of psql's \e
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2020-12-01 16:13:53 Re: Phrase search vs. multi-lexeme tokens