From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables |
Date: | 2018-10-09 23:00:14 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9CqGoPL6=DZjhYWv7GKGjHTY_QpdS7JbnEQ3GyZrK-mA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 October 2018 at 15:49, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2018/10/05 21:55, David Rowley wrote:
>> I'm not so sure we need to zero the partition_tuple_slots[] array at
>> all since we always set a value there is there's a corresponding map
>> stored. I considered pulling that out, but in the end, I didn't as I
>> saw some Asserts checking it's been properly set by checking the
>> element != NULL in nodeModifyTable.c and copy.c. Perhaps I should
>> have just gotten rid of those Asserts along with the palloc0 and
>> subsequent memset after the expansion of the array. I'm undecided.
>
> Maybe it's a good thing that it's doing the same thing as with the
> child_to_parent_maps array, which is to zero-init it when allocated.
Perhaps, but the maps do need to be zeroed, the partition_tuple_slots
array does not since we only access it when the parent to child map is
set.
In any case, since PARTITION_ROUTING_INITSIZE is just 8, it'll likely
not save much since it's really just saving a memset(..., 0, 64), for
single-row INSERTs on a 64-bit machine. So likely it won't save more
than a bunch of nanoseconds.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2018-10-09 23:17:44 | Re: [HACKERS] removing abstime, reltime, tinterval.c, spi/timetravel |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2018-10-09 22:21:12 | Re: IDE setup and development features? |