benchmarking Flex practices - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject benchmarking Flex practices
Date
Msg-id CACPNZCvaoa3EgVWm5yZhcSTX6RAtaLgniCPcBVOCwm8h3xpWkw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: benchmarking Flex practices
List pgsql-hackers
I decided to do some experiments with how we use Flex. The main
takeaway is that backtracking, which we removed in 2005, doesn't seem
to matter anymore for the core scanner. Also, state table size is of
marginal importance.

Using the information_schema Flex+Bison microbenchmark from Tom [1], I
tested removing most of the "fail" rules designed to avoid
backtracking ("decimalfail" is needed by PL/pgSQL). Below are the best
times (most runs within 1%), followed by postgres binary size. The
numbers are with Flex 2.5.35 on MacOS, no asserts or debugging
symbols.

HEAD:
1.53s
7139132 bytes

HEAD minus "fail" rules (patch attached):
1.53s
6971204 bytes

Surprisingly, it has the same performance and a much smaller binary.
The size difference is because the size of the elements of the
yy_transition array is constrained by the number of elements in the
array. Since there are now fewer than INT16_MAX state transitions, the
struct members go from 32 bit:

struct yy_trans_info
{
flex_int32_t yy_verify;
flex_int32_t yy_nxt;
};
static yyconst struct yy_trans_info yy_transition[37045] = ...

to 16 bit:

struct yy_trans_info
{
flex_int16_t yy_verify;
flex_int16_t yy_nxt;
};
static yyconst struct yy_trans_info yy_transition[31763] = ...

To test if array size was the deciding factor, I tried bloating it by
essentially undoing commit a5ff502fcea. Doing so produced an array
with 62583 elements and 32-bit members, so nearly quadruple in size,
and it was still not much slower than HEAD:

HEAD minus "fail" rules, minus %xusend/%xuiend:
1.56s
7343932 bytes

While at it, I repeated the benchmark with different Flex flags:

HEAD, plus -Cf:
1.60s
6995788 bytes

HEAD, minus "fail" rules, plus -Cf:
1.59s
6979396 bytes

HEAD, plus -Cfe:
1.65s
6868804 bytes

So this recommendation of the Flex manual (-CF) still holds true. It's
worth noting that using perfect hashing for keyword lookup (20%
faster) had a much bigger effect than switching from -Cfe to -CF (7%
faster).

It would be nice to have confirmation to make sure I didn't err
somewhere, and to try a more real-world benchmark. (Also for the
moment I only have Linux on a virtual machine.) The regression tests
pass, but some comments are now wrong. If it's confirmed that
backtracking doesn't matter for recent Flex/hardware, disregarding it
would make maintenance of our scanners a bit easier.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14616.1558560331%40sss.pgh.pa.us

-- 
John Naylor                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs