On 10 November 2017 at 16:30, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> In 0002, bms_add_range has a bit naive-looking loop
>
> + while (wordnum <= uwordnum)
> + {
> + bitmapword mask = (bitmapword) ~0;
> +
> + /* If working on the lower word, zero out bits below 'lower'. */
> + if (wordnum == lwordnum)
> + {
> + int lbitnum = BITNUM(lower);
> + mask >>= lbitnum;
> + mask <<= lbitnum;
> + }
> +
> + /* Likewise, if working on the upper word, zero bits above 'upper' */
> + if (wordnum == uwordnum)
> + {
> + int ushiftbits = BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD - (BITNUM(upper) + 1);
> + mask <<= ushiftbits;
> + mask >>= ushiftbits;
> + }
> +
> + a->words[wordnum++] |= mask;
> + }
>
> Without some aggressive optimization, the loop takes most of the
> time to check-and-jump for nothing especially with many
> partitions and somewhat unintuitive.
>
> The following uses a bit tricky bitmap operation but
> is straightforward as a whole.
>
> =====
> /* fill the bits upper from BITNUM(lower) (0-based) of the first word */
> a->workds[wordnum++] += ~(bitmapword)((1 << BITNUM(lower)) - 1);
>
> /* fill up intermediate words */
> while (wordnum < uwordnum)
> a->words[wordnum++] = ~(bitmapword) 0;
>
> /* fill up to BITNUM(upper) bit (0-based) of the last word */
> a->workds[wordnum++] |=
> (~(bitmapword) 0) >> (BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD - (BITNUM(upper) - 1));
> =====
No objections here for making bms_add_range() perform better, but this
is not going to work when lwordnum == uwordnum. You'd need to special
case that. I didn't think it was worth the trouble, but maybe it is...
I assume the += should be |=.
-- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
