From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladlen Popolitov <v(dot)popolitov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some ExecSeqScan optimizations |
Date: | 2025-01-14 02:17:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFAgSUJ8L6Fr7tuj5phvPyC2TM1JU0kQgMztvKjXp=JzA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Junwang,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:39 PM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 7:22 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 7:36 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 at 22:53, Vladlen Popolitov
> > > <v(dot)popolitov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > > > In case of query
> > > > select count(*) from test_table where a_1 = 1000000;
> > > > I would expect increase of query time due to additional if...else . It
> > > > is not clear
> > > > what code was eliminated to decrease query time.
> > >
> > > Are you talking about the code added to ExecInitSeqScan() to determine
> > > which node function to call? If so, that's only called during executor
> > > startup. The idea here is to reduce the branching during execution by
> > > calling one of those special functions which has a more specialised
> > > version of the ExecScan code for the particular purpose it's going to
> > > be used for.
> >
> > Looks like I hadn't mentioned this key aspect of the patch in the
> > commit message, so did that in the attached.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. While seeing the patch, the es_epq_active
> confused me a little bit mostly because its name, a field name ending with
> "active" typically suggests a boolean value, but here it is not, should we
> change it to sth like es_epqstate? However this is not related to this patch,
> I can start a new thread if you think this is worth a patch.
Yeah, the name has confused me as well from time to time.
Though it might be a good idea to dig the thread that led to the
introduction of this field to find out if the naming has some logic
we're missing.
You may start a new thread to get the attention of other folks who
might have some clue.
> There is one tiny indent issue(my IDE does this automatically), which I
> guess you will fix before committing.
>
> - EPQState *epqstate;
> + EPQState *epqstate;
Thanks for the heads up.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-01-14 03:13:39 | Docs for pg_basebackup needs v17 note for incremental backup |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2025-01-14 02:13:10 | Re: Some ExecSeqScan optimizations |