From: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
Cc: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:29:29 +0700
Message-ID: <5bcbf926-3d5a-e953-79a6-b6ab0f8b23a0@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZKyHv2qN2jrZMaWO@paquier.xyz>
References: <Y8eZ9/3STyhF57RV@paquier.xyz>
<50b571dc-e0c0-22be-9803-4a3480d2e792@enterprisedb.com>
<Y8oaA5Vxnr4rzEDJ@paquier.xyz>
<e4d61d52-4992-d190-b5ad-48c6c752942c@enterprisedb.com>
<Y8tdmPlzFyNcrPR3@paquier.xyz>
<bf604c8d-b6e9-284b-327a-cac8417a74e8@enterprisedb.com>
<Y8+BdCOjxykre5es@paquier.xyz>
<9695f035-0f2b-92b9-deed-0b7e5bb7e4e0@enterprisedb.com>
<Y9M+C2obzgRnXPNd@paquier.xyz>
<268fd337-8bb7-92e6-0da2-416c022c11f3@enterprisedb.com>
<ZKyHv2qN2jrZMaWO@paquier.xyz>
On 11/7/2023 05:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:48:45AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 27.01.23 03:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> At the end, that would be unnoticeable for the average user, I guess,
>>> but here are the numbers I get on my laptop :)
>>
>> Personally, I think we do not want the two jumble methods in parallel.
>>
>> Maybe there are other opinions.
>
> (Thanks Jonathan for the poke.)
>
> Now that we are in mid-beta for 16, it would be a good time to
> conclude on this open item:
> "Reconsider a utility_query_id GUC to control if query jumbling of
> utilities can go through the past string-only mode and the new mode?"
>
> In Postgres ~15, utility commands used a hash of the query string to
> compute their query ID. The current query jumbling code uses a Query
> instead, like any other queries. I have registered this open item as
> a self-reminder, mostly in case there would be an argument to have a
> GUC where users could switch from one mode to another. See here as
> well for some computation times for each method (table is in ns, wiht
> millions of iterations):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y9eeYinDb1AcpWrG@paquier.xyz
>
> I still don't think that we need both methods based on these numbers,
> but there may be more opinions about that? Are people OK if this open
> item is discarded?
I vote for only one method based on a query tree structure.
BTW, did you think about different algorithms of queryId generation?
Auto-generated queryId code can open a way for extensions to have
easy-supporting custom queryIds.
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
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: a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru, michael@paquier.xyz, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, bdrouvot@amazon.com, jkatz@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl
In-Reply-To: <5bcbf926-3d5a-e953-79a6-b6ab0f8b23a0@postgrespro.ru>
* 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