Re: [PATCH] Use optimized single-datum tuplesort in ExecSort

Le lundi 12 juillet 2021, 15:11:17 CEST David Rowley a écrit :
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 21:32, Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io> wrote:
> > In the meantime I fixed some formatting issues, please find attached a new
> > patch.
> 
> I started to look at this.

Thank you ! I'm attaching a new version of the patch taking your remarks into 
account.
> 
> First I wondered how often we might be able to apply this
> optimisation, so I ran make check after adding some elog(NOTICE) calls
> to output which method is going to be used just before we do the
> tuplestore_begin_* calls.  It looks like there are 614 instances of
> Datum sorts and 4223 of tuple sorts. That's about 14.5% datum sorts.
> 223 of the 614 are byval types and the other 391 are byref. Not that
> the regression tests are a good reflection of the real world, but if
> it were then that's quite a good number of cases to be able to
> optimise.

That's an interesting stat.

> 
> As for the patch, just a few things:
> 
> 1. Can you add the missing braces in this if condition and the else
> condition that belongs to it.
> 
> + if (node->is_single_val)
> + for (;;)
> + {
> 

Done.

> 2. I think it would nicer to name the new is_single_val field
> "datumSort" instead. To me it seems more clear what it is for.

Done.

> 
> 3. This seems to be a bug fix where byval datum sorts do not properly
> handle bounded sorts.  I think that maybe that should be fixed and
> backpatched.  I don't see anything that says Datum sorts can't be
> bounded and if there were some restriction on that I'd expect
> tuplesort_set_bound() to fail when the Tuplesortstate had been set up
> with tuplesort_begin_datum().

I've kept this as-is for now, but I will remove it from my patch if it is 
deemed worthy of back-patching in your other thread. 

Regards,

-- 
Ronan Dunklau