On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 18:21, Burd, Greg <gregb...@amazon.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I've rebased and updated the patch a bit. The biggest change is that the > performance penalty measured with v1 of this patch is essentially gone in > v10. The overhead was due to re-creating IndexInfo information > unnecessarily, which I found existed in the estate. I've added a few fields > in IndexInfo that are not populated by default but necessary when checking > expression indexes, those fields are populated on demand and only once > limiting their overhead.
This review is based on a light reading of patch v10. I have not read all 90kB, and am unlikely to finish a full review soon: > * assumes estate->es_result_relations[0] is the ResultRelInfo being updated I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. I suspect it might be false in cases of nested updates, like $ UPDATE table1 SET value = other.value FROM (UPDATE table2 SET value = 2 ) other WHERE other.id = table1.id; If this table1 or table2 has expression indexes I suspect it may result in this assertion failing (but I haven't spun up a server with the patch). Alternatively, please also check that it doesn't break if any of these two tables is partitioned with multiple partitions (and/or has expression indexes, etc.). > * uses ri_IndexRelationInfo[] from within estate rather than re-creating it As I mentioned above, I think it's safer to pass the known-correct RRI (known by callers of table_tuple_update) down the stack. > * augments IndexInfo only when needed for testing expressions and only once ExecExpressionIndexesUpdated seems to always loop over all indexes, always calling AttributeIndexInfo which always updates the fields in the IndexInfo when the index has only !byval attributes (e.g. text, json, or other such varlena types). You say it happens only once, have I missed something? I'm also somewhat concerned about the use of typecache lookups on index->rd_opcintype[i], rather than using TupleDescCompactAttr(index->rd_att, i); the latter of which I think should be faster, especially when multiple wide indexes are scanned with various column types. In hot loops of single-tuple update statements I think this may make a few 0.1%pt difference - not a lot, but worth considering. > * only creates a local old/new TupleTableSlot when not present in estate I'm not sure it's safe for us to touch that RRI's tupleslots. > * retains existing summarized index HOT update logic Great, thanks! Kind regards, Matthias van de Meent Neon (https://neon.tech)
