From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Sokolov Yura <funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:34:29 -0500
Message-ID: <20180123033429.GF2416@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL-rCA2n7UfVu1Ui0f+7cVN4vAKVM0+-cZKb_ka6-mGQBAF92w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGTBQpZgs4hVmDtHg4F6MDJuAE9-U=z6d+yJzjPsZup7AZhV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
<22996.1510160560@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAL-rCA3n4Neat4pH382nuZ9v0-SCZOBJ=KHT5CoBGXim=KTAhw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL-rCA2cCyvapkb15fADR3qKsRMo+XimPgmGviur1ui-y0q-aQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WznEQBxeij1_PnczUD=vQqS0aPWOxJAkmjH_rXoBpeo0ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL-rCA3=MiVU7SWenhPL0a3e5KfOkzvXZDp_WL+ea2Ky57Fqdg@mail.gmail.com>
<20171128224150.syswowiaiojth7ke@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CAH2-Wzk19G5=RxQpgfUirRvihjrMvZSMSi=u53TbMbvLj1+5vA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB7nPqS4JRP_xyO3YCuBktGhTkDMRvg3-WBTgLqwpnLrtx-Qzg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL-rCA2n7UfVu1Ui0f+7cVN4vAKVM0+-cZKb_ka6-mGQBAF92w@mail.gmail.com>
Greetings,
* Юрий Соколов (funny.falcon@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after
> >> the change? These should be just specializations of the template version
> >> imo.
>
> "generic" version operates on bytes, and it will be a bit hard to combine
> it with
> templated version. Not impossible, but it will look ugly.
If that's the case then does it really make sense to make this change..?
> In attach fixed qsort_template version.
> And version for compactify_tuples with bucket_sort and templated qsort.
While having the patch is handy, I'm not seeing any performance numbers
on this version, and I imagine others watching this thread are also
wondering about things like a test run that just uses the specialized
qsort_itemIds() without the bucketsort.
Are you planning to post some updated numbers and/or an updated test
case that hopefully shows best/worst case with this change? Would be
good to get that on a couple of platforms too, if possible, since we've
seen that the original benchmarks weren't able to be consistently
repeated across different platforms. Without someone doing that
leg-work, this doesn't seem like it'll be moving forward.
Marking as Waiting on Author.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (818B, ../20180123033429.GF2416@tamriel.snowman.net/2-signature.asc)
download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, funny.falcon@gmail.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, klaussfreire@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples
In-Reply-To: <20180123033429.GF2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox