From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Gasper Zejn <zejn@owca.info>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pglz performance
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:05:59 +0100
Message-ID: <20191126200559.7ol33csmuwl6la2h@development> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c52bb971-ae60-81eb-be66-57f12d3ae102@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <3c2d92d0-e715-f9ed-e1a7-3c510ed65940@2ndquadrant.com>
<20191101154828.GA15829@alvherre.pgsql>
<20191101165950.b5azncggaqfan5fi@development>
<35c2a448-06b8-eab0-05ea-34a3f51ba9a8@2ndquadrant.com>
<20191125080309.GK99720@paquier.xyz>
<13C6049A-C3D9-4021-9934-41488DE38BE9@yandex-team.ru>
<20191125082940.GP99720@paquier.xyz>
<20191126094324.7y2n3n3houetavwd@development>
<c52bb971-ae60-81eb-be66-57f12d3ae102@2ndquadrant.com>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:13PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>On 2019-11-26 10:43, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>In general, I think the results for both patches seem clearly a win, but
>>maybe patch 1 is bit better, especially on the newer (xeon) CPU. So I'd
>>probably go with that one.
>
>Patch 1 is also the simpler patch, so it seems clearly preferable.
>
Yeah, although the difference is minimal. We could probably construct a
benchmark where #2 wins, but I think these queries are fairly realistic.
So I'd just go with #1.
Code-wise I think the patches are mostly fine, although the comments
might need some proof-reading.
1) I wasn't really sure what a "nibble" is, but maybe it's just me and
it's a well-known term.
2) First byte use lower -> First byte uses lower
3) nibble contain upper -> nibble contains upper
4) to preven possible uncertanity -> to prevent possible uncertainty
5) I think we should briefly explain why memmove would be incompatible
with pglz, it's not quite clear to me.
6) I'm pretty sure the comment in the 'while (off < len)' branch will be
badly mangled by pgindent.
7) The last change moving "copy" to the next line seems unnecessary.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, x4mmm@yandex-team.ru, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, zejn@owca.info, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pglz performance
In-Reply-To: <20191126200559.7ol33csmuwl6la2h@development>
* 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