Greetings, * Kyotaro Horiguchi (horikyota....@gmail.com) wrote: > At Tue, 06 Sep 2022 17:10:49 -0400, Reid Thompson > <reid.thomp...@crunchydata.com> wrote in > > I'm open to guidance on testing for performance degradation. I did > > note some basic pgbench comparison numbers in the thread regarding > > limiting backend memory allocations. > > Yeah.. That sounds good.. > > (I have a patch that is stuck at benchmarking on slight possible > degradation caused by a branch (or indirect call) on a hot path > similary to this one. The test showed fluctuation that is not clearly > distinguishable between noise and degradation by running the target > functions in a busy loop..)
Just to be clear- this path is (hopefully) not *super* hot as we're only tracking actual allocations (that is- malloc() calls), this isn't changing anything for palloc() calls that aren't also needing to do a malloc(), and we already try to reduce the amount of malloc() calls we're doing by allocating more and more each time we run out in a given context. While I'm generally supportive of doing some benchmarking around this, I don't think the bar is as high as it would be if we were actually changing the cost of routine palloc() or such calls. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
