Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRDOtBxEKJTWWnV8AnezrQOoGUFN6JWRU9taHEhWfcZxKw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?  (Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

pá 23. 8. 2019 v 16:32 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> napsal:


On 23.08.2019 14:42, Pavel Stehule wrote:

In reality it is not IMMUTABLE function. On second hand, there are lot of application that depends on this behave.

It is well know trick how to reduce estimation errors related to JOINs. When immutable function has constant parameters, then it is evaluated in planning time.

So sometimes was necessary to use

SELECT ... FROM tab WHERE foreign_key = immutable_function('constant parameter')

instead JOIN.

It is ugly, but it is working perfectly. I think so until we will have multi table statistics, this behave should be available in Postgres.

Sure, this function should not be used for functional indexes.
 

What about the following version of the patch?

I am sending review of this small patch.

This small patch reduce a overhead of usage buildin immutable functions in volatile functions with simple trick. Starts snapshot only when it is necessary.

In decrease runtime time about 25 % on this small example.

do $$
declare i int;
begin
  i := 0;
  while i < 10000000
  loop
    i := i + 1;
  end loop;
end;
$$;

If there are more expressions, then speedup can be more interesting. If there are other bottlenecks, then the speedup will be less. 25% is not bad, so we want to this feature.

I believe so similar method can be used more aggressively with more significant performance benefit, but this is low hanging fruit and isn't reason to wait for future.

This patch doesn't introduce any new feature, so new tests and new doc is not necessary.
The patch is readable, well  formatted, only comments are too long. I fixed it.
All tests passed
I fixed few warnings, and I reformated little bit function expr_needs_snapshot to use if instead case, what is more usual in these cases.

I think so this code can be marked as ready for commit

Regards

Pavel




-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: alternative to PG_CATCH
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?