Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaRjAynkdrs3r2QEkcb1fk4_3HvvoqCehWB_7mLy+GGDA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists  (Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>)
Responses Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> wrote:
> Agreed that there's overhead in allocating list items, but is it more
> overhead than pushing functions on the call stack? Not sure, so I leave it
> to others who understand such things better than I do.

If you think that a palloc can ever be cheaper that pushing a frame on
the callstack, you're wrong.  palloc is not some kind of an atomic
primitive.  It's implemented by the AllocSetAlloc function, and you're
going to have to push that function on the call stack, too, in order
to run it.

My main point here is that if the user writes a = 1 and b = 1 and c =
1 and d = 1, they're not going to end up with a bushy tree.  They're
going to end up with a tree that's only deep in one direction (left, I
guess) and that's the case we might want to consider optimizing.  To
obtain a bushy tree, they're going to have to write a  = 1 and (b = 1
and c = 1) and d = 1, or something like that, and I don't see why we
should stress out about that case.  It will be rare in practice.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement)