Tom Lane kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 02:18:
> "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
> > Why not waste a bit of memory and make the row buffer the maximum
> > possible length?
> > E.g. for varchar(2000) allocate 2000 characters + size element and point
> > to the start of that thing.
>
> Surely you're not proposing that we store data on disk that way.
>
> The real issue here is avoiding overhead while extracting columns out of
> a stored tuple. We could perhaps use a different, less space-efficient
> format for temporary tuples in memory than we do on disk, but I don't
> think that will help a lot. The nature of O(N^2) bottlenecks is you
> have to kill them all --- for example, if we fix printtup and don't do
> anything with ExecEvalVar, we can't do more than double the speed of
> Steve's example, so it'll still be slow. So we must have a solution for
> the case where we are disassembling a stored tuple, anyway.
>
> I have been sitting here toying with a related idea, which is to use the
> heap_deformtuple code I suggested before to form an array of pointers to
> Datums in a specific tuple (we could probably use the TupleTableSlot
> mechanisms to manage the memory for these). Then subsequent accesses to
> individual columns would just need an array-index operation, not a
> nocachegetattr call. The trick with that would be that if only a few
> columns are needed out of a row, it might be a net loss to compute the
> Datum values for all columns. How could we avoid slowing that case down
> while making the wide-tuple case faster?
make the pointer array incrementally for O(N) performance:
i.e. for tuple with 100 cols, allocate an array of 100 pointers, plus
keep count of how many are actually valid,
so the first call to get col[5] will fill first 5 positions in the array
save said nr 5 and then access tuple[ptrarray[5]]
next call to get col[75] will start form col[5] and fill up to col[75]
next call to col[76] will start form col[75] and fill up to col[76]
next call to col[60] will just get tuple[ptrarray[60]]
the above description assumes 1-based non-C arrays ;)
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
