Re: Optimization for lower(), upper(), casefold() functions. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Optimization for lower(), upper(), casefold() functions. |
Date | |
Msg-id | 7ab9d255-d7c0-4841-96c3-ed3ce9aa4abd@iki.fi Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Optimization for lower(), upper(), casefold() functions. (Alexander Borisov <lex.borisov@gmail.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/01/2025 15:39, Alexander Borisov wrote: > The code is fixed, now the patch passes all tests. > > Change from the original patch (v1): > Reduce the main table from 3003 to 1677 (duplicates removed) records. > Added records from 0x00 to 0x80 for fast path. > Renamed get_case() function to pg_unicode_case_index(). > > Benchmark numbers have changed a bit. Nice results! > Because of the modified approach of record search by table we > managed to: > 1. Removed storing Unicode codepoints (unsigned int) in all tables. > 2. Reduce the main table from 3003 to 1575 (duplicates removed) records. > 3. Replace pointer (essentially uint64_t) with uin8_t in the main table. > 4. Reduced the time to find a record in the table. > 5. Reduce the size of the final object file. > > The approach is generally as follows: > Group Unicode codepoints into ranges in which the difference between > neighboring elements does not exceed the specified limit. > For example, if there are numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and limit = 1, then > there is a difference of 2 between 3 and 5, which is greater than 1, > so there will be ranges 1-3 and 5-6. > > Then we form a table (let's call it an index table) by combining the > obtained ranges. The table contains uint16_t index to the main table. > > Then from the previously obtained diapasons we form a function > (get_case()) to get the index to the main table. The function, in fact, > contains only IF/ELSE IF constructs imitating binary search. > > Because we are not directly accessing the main table with data, we can > exclude duplicates from it, and there are almost half of them. > Also, because get_case() contains all the information about Unicode > ranges, we don't need to store Unicode codepoints in the main table. > Also because of this approach some checks were removed, which allowed > to increase performance even with fast path (codepoints < 0x80). Did you consider using a radix tree? We use that method in src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/convutils.pm. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than what's proposed here, but it would seem like a more standard technique at least. Or if this is clearly better, then maybe we should switch to this technique in convutils.pm too. A perfect hash would be another alternative, we use that in src/common/unicode_norm.c. Did you check that these optimizations still win with Unicode version 16 (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/146349e4-4687-4321-91af-f235572490a8@eisentraut.org)? We haven't updated to that yet, but sooner or later we will. The way you're defining 'pg_unicode_case_index' as a function in the header file won't work. It needs to be a static inline function if it's in the header. Or put it in a .c file. Some ideas on how to squeeze this further: - Instead of having one table that contains Lower/Title/Upper/Fold for every character, it might be better to have four separate tables. I think that would be more cache-friendly: you typically run one of the functions for many different characters in a loop, rather than all of the functions for the same character. You could deduplicate between the tables too: for many ranges of characters, Title=Upper and Lower=Fold. - The characters are stored as 4-byte integers, but the high byte is always 0. Could squeeze those out. Not sure if that would be a win if it makes the accesses unaligned, but you could benchmark that. Alternatively, use that empty byte to store the 'special_case' index, instead of having a separate field for it. - Many characters that have a special case only need the special case for some of the functions, not all. If you stored the special_case separately for each function (as the high byte in the 'simplemap' field perhaps, like I suggested on previous point), you could avoid having those "dummy" special cases. -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)
pgsql-hackers by date: