| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute |
| Date: | 2023-03-21 19:58:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20230321195805.cj7to6ozivqrmial@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-03-21 20:20:40 +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 19:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > FWIW, I think we should consider getting rid of attcacheoff. I doubt it's
> > > worth its weight these days, because deforming via slots starts at the
> > > beginning anyway. The overhead of maintaining it is not insubstantial, and
> > > it's just architecturally ugly to to update tupledescs continually.
> >
> > I'd be for that if we can convince ourselves there's not a material
> > speed penalty. As you say, it's quite ugly.
>
> Yes, attcacheoff is a tremendous performance boon in many cases.
Which? We don't use fastgetattr() in many places these days. And in some quick
measurements it's a wash or small loss when deforming slot tuples, even when
the attcacheoff optimization would apply, because the branches for managing it
add more overhead than they safe.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2023-03-21 19:59:29 | Re: Comment in preptlist.c |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-03-21 19:48:16 | Re: Adjust Memoize hit_ratio calculation |