Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time
Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-01-06T00:01:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
During btree index build, sort equal-keyed tuples according to their
- fbac1272b89b 8.0.0 cited
On 5 January 2012 22:27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > There is no compiler anywhere that implements "always inline", unless > you are talking about a macro. "inline" is a hint and nothing more, > and if you think you can force it you are mistaken. So this controversy > is easily resolved: we do not need any such construct. I'm slightly puzzled by your remarks here. GCC documentation on this is sparse (although, as I've demonstrated, I can get better numbers using the always_inline attribute on GCC 4.3), but take a look at this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z8y1yy88.aspx While it is not strictly true to say that pg_always_inline could inline every function under every set of circumstances, it's pretty close to the truth. I do accept that this facility could quite easily be abused if its use isn't carefully measured. I also accept that C99/GNU C inline functions are generally just requests to the compiler that may be ignored (and indeed the compiler may inline without being asked to). It's short sighted to see this as a case of inlining itself making a big difference, so much as it making a big difference as an enabling transformation. > The real question is whether we should accept a patch that is a > performance loss when the compiler fails to inline some reasonably > simple function. I think that would depend on the actual numbers > involved, so we'd need to see data before making a decision. Who said anything about a performance loss? Since the raw improvement to qsort_arg is so large, it's pretty difficult to imagine a confluence of circumstances in which this results in a net loss. See the figures at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-11/msg01316.php , for example. The pg_always_inline idea is relatively recent. It just serves to provide additional encouragement to the compiler to inline, insofar as that is possible on the platform in question. The compiler's cost/benefit analysis cannot possibly appreciate how hot a code path qsort_arg is, because it has a set of generic heuristics that are quite fallible, and very probably are on quite conservative. We can appreciate such things though. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services