From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
Subject: | Re: SQLFunctionCache and generic plans |
Date: | 2025-02-03 22:08:45 |
Message-ID: | 464677.1738620525@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> But wait: HEAD takes
> Time: 6632.709 ms (00:06.633)
> to do the same thing. So somehow the new-style SQL function
> stuff is very materially slower in this use-case, with or
> without this patch. I do not understand why.
"perf" tells me that in the fx3 test, a full third of the runtime
is spent inside stringToNode(), with about three-quarters of that
going into pg_strtok(). This makes no sense to me: we'll be reading
the prosqlbody of fx3(), sure, but that's not enormously long (about
1200 bytes). And pg_strtok() doesn't look remarkably slow. There's
no way this should be taking more time than raw parsing + parse
analysis, even for such a trivial query as "select $1 + $1".
There's been some talk of getting rid of our existing nodetree
storage format in favor of something more efficient. Maybe we
should put a higher priority on getting that done. But anyway,
that seems orthogonal to the current patch.
> Even without cross-query plan caching, I don't see why the
> patch isn't better than it is. It ought to be at least
> competitive with the unpatched code.
This remains true.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-02-03 22:32:17 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-02-03 21:22:48 | Re: Better title output for psql \dt \di etc. commands |