Horton

Re: add AVX2 support to simd.h

John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>

View thread
From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2024-03-20T06:57:54Z
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 →

  1. Improve style of pg_lfind32().

  2. Fix compiler warning for pg_lfind32().

  3. Micro-optimize pg_lfind32().

  4. Introduce helper SIMD functions for small byte arrays

  5. Optimize xid/subxid searches in XidInMVCCSnapshot().

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:30 PM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sounds similar in principle, but it looks really complicated. I don't
> > think the additional loops and branches are a good way to go, either
> > for readability or for branch prediction. My sketch has one branch for
> > which loop to do, and then performs only one loop. Let's do the
> > simplest thing that could work. (I think we might need a helper
> > function to do the block, but the rest should be easy)
>
> I tried to trim some of the branches, and came up with the attached patch.
> I don't think this is exactly what you were suggesting, but I think it's
> relatively close.  My testing showed decent benefits from using 2 vectors
> when there aren't enough elements for 4, so I've tried to keep that part
> intact.

I would caution against that if the benchmark is repeatedly running
against a static number of elements, because the branch predictor will
be right all the time (except maybe when it exits a loop, not sure).
We probably don't need to go to the trouble to construct a benchmark
with some added randomness, but we have be careful not to overfit what
the test is actually measuring.