On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:30 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:00 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have made the change to use the virtual slot for expression
> > evaluation and avoided tuple deformation.
> >
>
> I started looking at the v32-0006 patch and have some initial comments.
> Shouldn't old_slot, new_slot and tmp_new_slot be cached in the
> RelationSyncEntry, similar to scantuple?
> Currently, these slots are always getting newly allocated each call to
> pgoutput_row_filter_update() - and also, seemingly never deallocated.
> We previously found that allocating slots each time for each row
> filtered (over 1000s of rows) had a huge performance overhead.
> As an example, scantuple was originally newly allocated each row
> filtered, and to filter 1,000,000 rows in a test case it was taking 40
> seconds. Caching the allocation in RelationSyncEntry reduced it down
> to about 5 seconds.
Thanks for the comment, I have modified patch 6 to cache old_tuple,
new_tuple and tmp_new_tuple.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:37 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> + if ((att->attlen == -1 &&
> VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i])) &&
> + (!old_slot->tts_isnull[i] &&
> + !(VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(old_slot->tts_values[i]))))
> + {
> + tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i] = old_slot->tts_values[i];
> + newtup_changed = true;
> + }
>
> If the attribute is stored EXTERNAL_ONDIS on the new tuple and it is
> not null in the old tuple then it must be logged completely in the old
> tuple, so instead of checking
> !(VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(old_slot->tts_values[i]), it should be
> asserted,
Sorry, I missed this in my last update
For this to be true, shouldn't the fix in [1] be committed? I will
change this once that change is committed.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS0PR01MB611342D0A92D4F4BF26C0F47FB229@OS0PR01MB6113.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
