On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 6:57 AM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Yeah. One idea I had yesterday was to stash the field names, which in
> large JSON docs tent to be pretty repetitive, in a hash table instead of
> pstrduping each instance. The name would be valid until the end of the
> parse, and would only need to be duplicated by the callback function if
> it were needed beyond that. That's not the case currently with the
> parse_manifest code. I'll work on using a hash table.
IMHO, this is not a good direction. Anybody who is parsing JSON
probably wants to discard the duplicated labels and convert other
heavily duplicated strings to enum values or something. (e.g. if every
record has {"color":"red"} or {"color":"green"}). So the hash table
lookups will cost but won't really save anything more than just
freeing the memory not needed, but will probably be more expensive.
> The parse_manifest code does seem to pfree the scalar values it no
> longer needs fairly well, so maybe we don't need to to anything there.
Hmm. This makes me wonder if you've measured how much actual leakage there is?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
