From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns |
Date: | 2017-10-03 07:55:22 |
Message-ID: | 20171003075522.e7vmyuwj3gvdryot@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Attached is a revised version of this patchset. I'd like to get some
input on two points:
1) Does anybody have a better idea than the static buffer in
SendRowDescriptionMessage()? That's not particularly pretty, but
there's not really a convenient stringbuffer to use when called from
exec_describe_portal_message(). We could instead create a local
buffer for exec_describe_portal_message().
An alternative idea would be to have one reeusable buffer created for
each transaction command, but I'm not sure that's really better.
2) There's a lot of remaining pq_sendint() callers in other parts of the
tree. If others are ok with that, I'd do a separate pass over them.
I'd say that even after doing that, we should keep pq_sendint(),
because a lot of extension code is using that.
3) The use of restrict, with a configure based fallback, is something
we've not done before, but it's C99 and delivers significantly more
efficient code. Any arguments against?
Regards,
Andres
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Add-configure-infrastructure-to-detect-support-forv2.patch | text/x-diff | 4.1 KB |
0002-Allow-to-avoid-NUL-byte-management-for-stringinfosv2.patch | text/x-diff | 4.7 KB |
0003-Add-more-efficient-functions-to-pqformat-APIv2.patch | text/x-diff | 10.9 KB |
0004-Use-one-stringbuffer-for-all-rows-printed-in-printv2.patch | text/x-diff | 3.1 KB |
0005-Improve-performance-of-SendRowDescriptionMessagev2.patch | text/x-diff | 6.4 KB |
0006-Replace-remaining-printtup-uses-of-pq_sendint-withv2.patch | text/x-diff | 2.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-03 08:06:20 | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-10-03 07:38:07 | Re: Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle |