st 2. 12. 2020 v 21:02 odesÃlatel Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
> Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:58:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So ... one of the things that's been worrying me about this patch > >> from day one is whether it would create a noticeable performance > >> penalty for existing use-cases. I did a small amount of experimentation > >> about that with the v35 patchset, and it didn't take long at all to > >> find that this: > >> ... > >> is about 15% slower with the patch than with HEAD. I'm not sure > >> what an acceptable penalty might be, but 15% is certainly not it. > > > I've tried to reproduce that, but get ~2-4% slowdown (with a pinned > > backend, no turbo etc). Are there any special steps I've probably > > missed? > > Hmm, no, I just built with --disable-cassert and otherwise my usual > development options. > > I had experimented with some other variants of the test case, > where the repeated statement is > > a[i] := i; -- about the same > a[i] := a[i-1] + 1; -- 7% slower > a[i] := a[i-1] - a[i-2]; -- 15% slower > > so it seems clear that the penalty is on the array fetch not array > assign side. This isn't too surprising now that I think about it, > because plpgsql's array assignment code is untouched by the patch > (which is a large feature omission BTW: you still can't write > jsonb['x'] := y; > The refactoring of the left part of the assignment statement in plpgsql probably can be harder work than this patch. But it should be the next step. in plpgsql). > > I tested the last patch on my FC33 Lenovo T520 (I7) and I don't see 15% slowdown too .. On my comp there is a slowdown of about 1.5-3%. I used your function arraytest. Regards Pavel > regards, tom lane >
