On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 15:38, Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I have interest about what caused the tiny difference, I admit that what direction
> this patch should go is more important. Not sure if anyone is convinced that
> v8 and v9 have a similar performance. The current data show it is similar. I want to
> profile/read code more, but I don't know what part I should pay attention to. So I think
> any hints on why v9 should be better at a noticeable level in theory should be very
> helpful. After that, I'd like to read the code or profile more carefully.
It was thought by putting the cache code directly inside
nodeNestloop.c that the overhead of fetching a tuple from a subnode
could be eliminated when we get a cache hit.
A cache hit on v8 looks like:
Nest loop -> Fetch new outer row
Nest loop -> Fetch inner row
Result Cache -> cache hit return first cached tuple
Nest loop -> eval qual and return tuple if matches
With v9 it's more like:
Nest Loop -> Fetch new outer row
Nest loop -> cache hit return first cached tuple
Nest loop -> eval qual and return tuple if matches
So 1 less hop between nodes.
In reality, the hop is not that expensive, so might not be a big
enough factor to slow the execution down.
There's some extra complexity in v9 around the slot type of the inner
tuple. A cache hit means the slot type is Minimal. But a miss means
the slot type is whatever type the inner node's slot is. So some code
exists to switch the qual and projection info around depending on if
we get a cache hit or a miss.
I did some calculations on how costly pulling a tuple through a node in [1].
David
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f9UXdk6ZYyqbJnjFO9a9hyHKGW7B%3DZRh-rxy9qxfPA5Gw%40mail.gmail.com
