On 24 June 2013 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> writes:
I will summarize the results, and if most of us feel that they are not good
enough, then we can return this patch.
Aside from the question of whether there's really any generally-useful
performance improvement from this patch, it strikes me that this change
forecloses other games that we might want to play with interpretation of
the value of a tuple's natts.

In particular, when I was visiting Salesforce last week, the point came
up that they'd really like ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN to be "free" even when
the column had a non-null DEFAULT. It's not too difficult to imagine
how we might support that, at least when the default expression is a
constant: decree that if the requested attribute number is beyond natts,
look aside at the tuple descriptor to see if the column is marked as
having a magic default value, and if so, substitute that rather than
just returning NULL. (This has to be a "magic" value separate from
the current default, else a subsequent DROP or SET DEFAULT would do
the wrong thing.)
Now that is a mighty fine idea.
However, this idea conflicts with an optimization that supposes it can
reduce natts to suppress null columns: if the column was actually stored
as null, you'd lose that information, and would incorrectly return the
magic default on subsequent reads.

I think it might be possible to make both ideas play together, by
not reducing natts further than the last column with a magic default.
However, that means extra complexity in heap_form_tuple, which would
invalidate the performance measurements done in support of this patch.

In short, there's no free lunch ...
Agreed.

I think its rather a shame that the proponents of this patch have
tried so hard to push this through without working variations on the
theme. Please guys, go away and get creative; rethink the approach so
that you can have your lunch without anybody else losing theirs. I
would add that I have seen the use case and want to support it, but
we're looking to add to the codebase not just steal small bites of
performance from existing use cases.

As a practical suggestion, why not change the macro so it doesn't even
try to do anything different unless the number of columns is > 72. A
constant comparison should go very quickly and isolate the code better
from the more typical code path. If not, lets try some other ideas,
like Tom just did.

--
  Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 33 of 52 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedOct 13, '12 at 7:56a
activeAug 22, '13 at 12:40a
posts52
users12
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2017 Grokbase