Re: remaining sql/json patches

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Langote
Тема Re: remaining sql/json patches
Дата
Msg-id DE543961-03AE-4618-977E-1AAC2E767479@gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: remaining sql/json patches  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: remaining sql/json patches  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Nov 16, 2023, at 17:48, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:11 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2023-11-15 22:00:41 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
This causes a nontrivial increase in the size of the parser (~5% in an
optimized build here), I wonder if we can do better.

Hmm, sorry if I sound ignorant but what do you mean by the parser here?

gram.o, in an optimized build.

I can see that the byte-size of gram.o increases by 1.66% after the
above additions  (1.72% with previous versions).

I'm not sure anymore how I measured it, but if you just looked at the total
file size, that might not show the full gain, because of debug symbols
etc. You can use the size command to look at just the code and data size.

$ size /tmp/gram.*
  text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
661808       0       0  661808   a1930 /tmp/gram.o.unpatched
672800       0       0  672800   a4420 /tmp/gram.o.patched

That's still a 1.66% increase in the code size:

(672800 - 661808) / 661808 % = 1.66

As for gram.c, the increase is a bit larger:

$ ll /tmp/gram.*
-rw-rw-r--. 1 amit amit 2605925 Nov 16 16:18 /tmp/gram.c.unpatched
-rw-rw-r--. 1 amit amit 2709422 Nov 16 16:22 /tmp/gram.c.patched

(2709422 - 2605925) / 2605925 % = 3.97

I've also checked
using log_parser_stats that there isn't much slowdown in the
raw-parsing speed.

What does "isn't much slowdown" mean in numbers?

Sure, the benchmark I used measured the elapsed time (using
log_parser_stats) of parsing a simple select statement (*) averaged
over 10000 repetitions of the same query performed with `psql -c`:

Unpatched: 0.000061 seconds
Patched: 0.000061 seconds

Here's a look at the perf:

Unpatched:
  0.59%  [.] AllocSetAlloc
  0.51%  [.] hash_search_with_hash_value
  0.47%  [.] base_yyparse

Patched:
  0.63%  [.] AllocSetAlloc
  0.52%  [.] hash_search_with_hash_value
  0.44%  [.] base_yyparse

(*) select 1, 2, 3 from foo where a = 1

Is there a more relevant benchmark I could use?

Thought I’d share a few more numbers I collected to analyze the parser size increase over releases.

* gram.o text bytes is from the output of `size gram.o`.
* compiled with -O3

version     gram.o text bytes  %change  gram.c bytes  %change

9.6         534010             -        2108984       -
10          582554             9.09     2258313       7.08
11          584596             0.35     2313475       2.44
12          590957             1.08     2341564       1.21
13          590381            -0.09     2357327       0.67
14          600707             1.74     2428841       3.03
15          633180             5.40     2495364       2.73
16          653464             3.20     2575269       3.20
17-sqljson  672800             2.95     2709422       3.97

So if we put SQL/JSON (including JSON_TABLE()) into 17, we end up with a gram.o 2.95% larger than v16, which granted is a somewhat larger bump, though also smaller than with some of recent releases.


--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add recovery to pg_control and remove backup_label
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log