On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:58 AM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've attached the patch I tested. It was thrown together very quickly
> just to try out the performance. If it's interesting I can polish it
> up a bit. If not, I didn't waste too much time.
@@ -959,6 +965,10 @@ tuplesort_begin_batch(Tuplesortstate *state)
state->tapeset = NULL;
+ /* check if specialized sorts can skip calling the tiebreak function */
+ state->oneKeySort = state->nKeys == 1 &&
+ !state->sortKeys[0].abbrev_converter;
+
IIUC, this function is called by tuplesort_begin_common, which in turn
is called by tuplesort_begin_{heap, indexes, etc}. The latter callers
set the onlyKey and now oneKeySort variables as appropriate, and
sometimes hard-coded to false. Is it intentional to set them here
first?
Falling under the polish that you were likely thinking of above:
We might rename oneKeySort to skipTiebreaker to avoid confusion.
SInce the test for these variable is the same, we could consolidate
them into a block and reword this existing comment (which I find a
little confusing anyway):
/*
* The "onlyKey" optimization cannot be used with abbreviated keys, since
* tie-breaker comparisons may be required. Typically, the optimization
* is only of value to pass-by-value types anyway, whereas abbreviated
* keys are typically only of value to pass-by-reference types.
*/
I can take a stab at this, unless you had something else in mind.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
