public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]>
To: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: KAZAR Ayoub <[email protected]>
Cc: Neil Conway <[email protected]>
Cc: Manni Wood <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Shinya Kato <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Speed up COPY FROM text/CSV parsing using SIMD
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:38:07 +0300
Message-ID: <CAN55FZ2OpqRxUUEvgPpHCk2HnY0xZSH1x09fgFGOUyXSv8HcEA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aY-vJe_ENCB-fux9@nathan>
References: <CAOW5sYZEx=fPw2wp7y2nK_-ifXFeYW4CTmFx_OQeoHFjG7rbHw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+K2Ru=C_woAnd-3-pGHoNSTR8FOf=7eeSWE1xaLt9ojVWndVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN55FZ0FRB2OD6-oEESLvgUT4bLZQVD72pAqUqzdw7Rx5cN0ig@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+K2Run1VdLnmp-5_Qv2Fax0KgT7LLJMH-uzjaaf-NZD1oU-=w@mail.gmail.com>
<aYZdKSTw6N3khsVE@nathan>
<CAN55FZ2DOeLjSXE2Jos99bgHG-Zeo3KjStrSgoA8Rf=2Mu+hFA@mail.gmail.com>
<aYZvdsXPElQvwWOA@nathan>
<CAN55FZ1=O6TjeZM2CUT7T2tu66uJT+w3G9FiRXVs+gt_ousFxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<aY0FL4rXUl6ykn-a@nathan>
<CAN55FZ3g6QaiC8G4GMjdJ24egvgc-HG_xpoOztxnM_wnQNn5aw@mail.gmail.com>
<aY-vJe_ENCB-fux9@nathan>
Hi,
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 at 02:09, Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 02:45:30PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > Also, if I change this code to:
> >
> > if (cstate->simd_enabled)
> > {
> > if (is_csv)
> > result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, true, true);
> > else
> > result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, false, true);
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > if (is_csv)
> > result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, true, false);
> > else
> > result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, false, false);
> > }
> >
> > then I see ~%5 performance improvement in scalar path compared to master.
>
> Hm. What difference do you see if you just do
>
> if (is_csv)
> result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, true);
> else
> result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, false);
>
> both with and without the SIMD stuff? IIUC this is allowing the compiler
> to remove several branches in CopyReadLineText(), which might be a nice
> improvement on its own. That being said, I'm less convinced that adding a
> simd_enabled parameter to CopyReadLineText() helps, because 1) it's
> involved in fewer branches and 2) we change it within the function, so the
> compiler can't remove the branches, anyway. But perhaps I'm missing
> something.
I did couple of benchmarks, some info about them:
- Benchmarks show percentage comparisons of timings against the master
branch. Positive values mean a regression, while negative values mean
an improvement.
- There are a total 200000 lines in each input and each line is 8192 bytes.
- For the columns, none means there is no special character. The other
numbers represent the ratio of normal characters to special
characters. For example, 0 means all the data is special characters, 4
means %25 of the data is special characters, 16 means 1/16 of the data
is special characters and such.
--------------------
This is the benchmark without the SIMD stuff:
- only_inline: Only change is CopyReadLineText() being inlined.
- is_csv_verbose-wo-inline: is_csv is sent as a constant boolean like
you suggested but CopyReadLineText() isn't inlined.
- is_csv_verbose-w-inline: is_csv is sent as a constant boolean and
CopyReadLineText() is inlined.
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| TEXT | none | 0 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| only_inline | 0 | +1.6 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-wo-inline | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-w-inline | -3.5 | 0 | -7.7 | -2.3 | -4.1 | -3.4 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| CSV | none | 0 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| only_inline | -1.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-wo-inline | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -0.3 | 0 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-w-inline | -4 | -2.3 | -1.2 | -1.8 | -2.8 | -2.7 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
By looking the benchmark results,
if (is_csv)
result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, true);
else
result = CopyReadLineText(cstate, false);
with inline CopyReadLineText() function helps the performance even without SIMD.
----------------------------------------
This is the same benchmark with SIMD stuff:
only_inline: Only change is CopyReadLineText() being inlined, there is
no simd_enabled argument in the CopyReadLineText().
is_csv_verbose-w-inline: is_csv is sent as a constant boolean and
CopyReadLineText() is inlined. There is no simd_enabled argument in
the CopyReadLineText().
simd_enabled_verbose-w-inline: simd_enabled is sent as a constant
boolean and CopyReadLineText() is inlined.
both_verbose_w_inline: both is_csv and simd_enabled are sent as a
constant boolean and CopyReadLineText() is inlined.
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| TEXT | none | 0 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| only_inline | -11 | +9.7 | +9.1 | +11.4 | +14.8 | +8 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-wo-inline | -11.9 | +4.5 | +2.4 | +3.5 | +2.2 | +1.8 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-w-inline | -12.6 | 0 | -2.4 | +2.8 | +1.6 | 0 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| both_verbose_w_inline | -12.1 | 0 | -5 | 0 | +2.5 | -1.8 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| CSV | none | 0 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| only_inline | -22.6 | +4.2 | +2.1 | +2.6 | 0 | +2.2 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| is_csv_verbose-w-inline | -22.5 | -2.1 | -3.4 | -3.9 | -6.4 | -3.4 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| simd_enabled_verbose-w-inline | -23 | 0 | -1.9 | -2.2 | -4.8 | -1.6 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
| both_verbose_w_inline | -23.3 | -2.9 | -5 | -4.5 | -7.1 | -4.3 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+------+-------+-------+------+
By looking at these results having both is_csv and simd_enabled as an
argument and sending them as constant boolean arguments help most.
>
> Some other random thoughts:
I am sending the benchmark results for now. I haven't tested other
suggestions yet. I will follow up with another email once I have
tested them.
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
view thread (21+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Speed up COPY FROM text/CSV parsing using SIMD
In-Reply-To: <CAN55FZ2OpqRxUUEvgPpHCk2HnY0xZSH1x09fgFGOUyXSv8HcEA@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox