On 5/21/22 15:06, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>>Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> writes:
>>> I was looking at the code in hash_record()
>>> of src/backend/utils/adt/rowtypes.c
>>> It seems if nulls[i] is true, we don't need to look up the hash function.
>
>>I don't think this is worth changing. It complicates the logic,
>>rendering it unlike quite a few other functions written in the same
>>style. In cases where the performance actually matters, the hash
>>function is cached across multiple calls anyway. You might save
>>something if you have many calls in a query and not one of them
>>receives a non-null input, but how likely is that?
>
> I disagree.
> I think that is worth changing. The fact of complicating the logic
> is irrelevant.
That's a quite bold claim, and yet you haven't supported it by any
argument whatsoever. Trade-offs between complexity and efficiency are a
crucial development task, so complicating the logic clearly does matter.
It might be out-weighted by efficiency benefits, but as Tom suggested
the cases that might benefit from this are extremely unlikely (data with
just NULL values). And even for those cases no benchmark quantifying the
difference was presented.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
