Re: Introduce list_reverse() to make lcons() usage less inefficient - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Introduce list_reverse() to make lcons() usage less inefficient
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvqxvGuET5MAM5K=XX9=qbqLS6ZXP49h2wihOsZQbrSqCg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Introduce list_reverse() to make lcons() usage less inefficient  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Introduce list_reverse() to make lcons() usage less inefficient
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 13:23, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> But wouldn't an even cheaper way here be to iterate over the children in
> reverse order when match_partition_order_desc? We can do that efficiently
> now. Looks like we don't have a readymade helper for it, but it'd be easy
> enough to add or open code.

That seems fair.  I think open coding is a better option.  I had a go
at foreach_reverse recently and decided to keep clear of it due to
behavioural differences with foreach_delete_current().

I've attached a patch for this.  It seems to have similar performance
to the list_reverse()

$ psql -c "explain (analyze, timing off) select * from lp order by a
desc" postgres | grep "Planning Time"
 Planning Time: 522.554 ms <- cold relcache
 Planning Time: 467.776 ms
 Planning Time: 466.424 ms

David

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: DDL result is lost by CREATE DATABASE with WAL_LOG strategy
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing System Allocator Thrashing of ExecutorState to Alleviate FDW-related Performance Degradations