From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Date: | 2014-04-08 17:02:48 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQVnuomFBWNHOyRQ8t+nVJp+3=e58jvvx_A9Y04QmHzrA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
t
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Avoid fmgr and shim overhead
> 2. Use strxfrm to produce a pseudo-leading key that's cheaper to compare.
>
> In that case, these changes need to be analyzed separately. You don't get to
> "make up" for the losses by the second part by the gains from the first
> part. We could commit just the first part (for 9.5!), and that has to be the
> baseline for the second part.
Yes, that's right. Robert already submitted a patch that only did 1)
almost 2 years ago. That should have been committed at the time, but
wasn't. At the time, the improvement was put at about 7% by Robert. It
would be odd to submit the same patch that Robert withdrew already.
Why shouldn't 2) be credited with the same benefits as 1) ? It's not
as if the fact that the strxfrm() trick uses SortSupport is a
contrivance. I cannot reasonably submit the two separately, unless the
second in a cumulative patch. By far the largest improvements come
from 2), while 1) doesn't regress anything.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason Petersen | 2014-04-08 17:08:46 | Buffer Allocation Concurrency Limits |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-04-08 16:59:39 | Re: four minor proposals for 9.5 |