Re: Increase value of OUTER_VAR

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-03-04T15:34:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 3/4/21 4:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> IMO just bumping up the constants from ~65k to 1M is a net loss, for
>> most users. We add this to bitmapsets, which means we're using ~8kB with
>> the current values, but this jumps to 128kB with this higher value. This
>> also means bms_next_member etc. have to walk much more memory, which is
>> bound to have some performance impact for everyone.
> 
> Hmm, do we really have any places that include OUTER_VAR etc in
> bitmapsets?  They shouldn't appear in relid sets, for sure.
> I agree though that if they did, this would have bad performance
> consequences.
> 

Hmmm, I don't know. I mostly assumed that if I do pull_varnos() it would
include those values. But maybe that's not supposed to happen.

> I still think the negative-special-values approach is better.
> If there are any places that that would break, we'd find out about
> it in short order, rather than having a silent performance lossage.
> 

OK

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



Commits

  1. Remove arbitrary 64K-or-so limit on rangetable size.

  2. More cleanups of the include files