From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Date: | 2019-02-26 02:01:23 |
Message-ID: | 20190226020123.m5gagnfvhj2kruk5@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-02-25 17:55:46 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm, I wonder if that's necessary / whether we can just work around user
> visible breakage at a small cost. I think I'm mostly concerned with two
> allocations for the very common case of small (1-3 entries) lists. We
> could just allocate the first array together with the header, and not
> free that if the list grows beyond that point. That'd mean we'd only do
> separate allocations once they actually amortize over a number of
> allocations.
Btw, if we actually were going to go for always allocating header + data
together (and thus incuring the problems you mention upthread), we ought
to store the members as a FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER together with the
list. Probably not worth it, but reducing the number of pointer
indirections for "list" accesses would be quite neat.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2019-02-26 02:39:42 | Re: JIT on FreeBSD ARMv7 |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-02-26 01:59:36 | Re: pgsql: Avoid creation of the free space map for small heap relations, t |