Re: Large writable variables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Large writable variables
Date
Msg-id 21009.1539638343@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Large writable variables  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-10-15 16:54:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah.  It also seems like doing it this way would improve locality of
>> access: the pieces of the giant string would presumably be in the same
>> order as the ScanKeywords entries, whereas with the current setup,
>> who knows where the compiler has put 'em or in what order.

> I assume you're talking about the offset approach. Performancewise I
> assume that my suggestion of inlining the names into the struct would be
> faster.  Are there many realistic cases where performance matters enough
> to warrant the size increase?

Doubt it, because there'd be an awful lot of wasted space due to the need
to set the struct size large enough for the longest keyword.  (Plus it
would likely not come out to be a power-of-2 size, slowing array
indexing.)  If you want this to be cache-friendly, I'd think the smaller
the better.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Large writable variables
Next
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 11 RC1 + GA Dates