From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: check for null value before looking up the hash function |
Date: | 2022-05-21 13:21:48 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQArxiozRn12BBgbe9RGm8=toNG3GyJO4uoddamcDK5x8jw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em sáb., 21 de mai. de 2022 às 10:06, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:
> >Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> writes:
> >> I was looking at the code in hash_record()
> >> of src/backend/utils/adt/rowtypes.c
> >> It seems if nulls[i] is true, we don't need to look up the hash
> function.
>
> >I don't think this is worth changing. It complicates the logic,
> >rendering it unlike quite a few other functions written in the same
> >style. In cases where the performance actually matters, the hash
> >function is cached across multiple calls anyway. You might save
> >something if you have many calls in a query and not one of them
> >receives a non-null input, but how likely is that?
>
> I disagree.
> I think that is worth changing. The fact of complicating the logic
> is irrelevant.
> But maybe the v2 attached would be a little better.
>
Or v3.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v3-hash-record-check-null-first.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-05-21 13:38:06 | Enforce "max_wal_size/ min_wal_size must be at least twice wal_segment_size" limit while setting GUCs |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-05-21 13:09:22 | doc: CREATE FOREIGN TABLE .. PARTITION OF .. DEFAULT |