From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change |
Date: | 2022-05-27 14:51:38 |
Message-ID: | 2650080.1653663098@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> В Вт, 24/05/2022 в 17:39 -0700, Andres Freund пишет:
>> A variation on your patch would be to only store the offset to the block
>> header - that should always fit into 32bit (huge allocations being their own
>> block, which is why this wouldn't work for storing an offset to the
>> context).
> I'm +1 for this.
Given David's results in the preceding message, I don't think I am.
A scheme like this would add more arithmetic and at least one more
indirection to GetMemoryChunkContext(), and we already know that
adding even a test-and-branch there has measurable cost. (I wonder
if using unlikely() on the test would help? But it's not unlikely
in a generation-context-heavy use case.) There would also be a good
deal of complication and ensuing slowdown created by the need for
oversize chunks to be a completely different kind of animal with a
different header.
I'm also not very happy about this:
> And with this change every memory context kind can have same header:
IMO that's a bug not a feature. It puts significant constraints on how
context types can be designed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-05-27 15:55:02 | Re: suboverflowed subtransactions concurrency performance optimize |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-27 14:21:51 | Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial |