Re: plan cache overhead on plpgsql expression

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plan cache overhead on plpgsql expression
Date: 2020-02-19 07:08:59
Message-ID: CA+HiwqEFt+cJUi=DLxmynYwFwWrC3mQMUSMcYefxU-5jgaeWew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:56 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:38 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > st 19. 2. 2020 v 7:30 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> napsal:
> >> út 18. 2. 2020 v 17:08 odesílatel Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> napsal:
> >>> > I updated the patch to do that.
> >>> >
> >>> > With the new patch, `select foo()`, with inline-able sql_incr() in it,
> >>> > runs in 679 ms.
> >>> >
> >>> > Without any inline-able function, it runs in 330 ms, whereas with
> >>> > HEAD, it takes 590 ms.
> >>>
> >>> I polished it a bit.
> >>
> >>
> >> the performance looks very interesting - on my comp the execution time of 100000000 iterations was decreased from 34 sec to 15 sec,
> >>
> >> So it is interesting speedup
> >
> > but regress tests fails
>
> Oops, I failed to check src/pl/plpgsql tests.
>
> Fixed in the attached.

Added a regression test based on examples discussed here too.

Thanks,
Amit

Attachment Content-Type Size
plpgsql-simple-exprs_v5.patch text/plain 13.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kirill Bychik 2020-02-19 07:27:50 Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-02-19 07:00:49 Re: Yet another fast GiST build