On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 7:16 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 21.01.21 14:11, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Agreed. bsearch with bound check showed a reasonable improvement in my > > evaluation in terms of performance. Regarding memory efficiency, we > > can experiment with other methods later. > > > > I've attached the patch that adds a bound check for encoded > > itermpointers before bsearch() in lazy_tid_reaped() and inlines the > > function. > > Do you have any data showing the effect of inlining lazy_tid_reaped()? > I mean, it probably won't hurt, but it wasn't part of the original patch > that you tested, so I wonder whether it has any noticeable effect.
I've done some benchmarks while changing the distribution of where dead tuples exist within the table. The table size is 4GB and 20% of total tuples are dirty. Here are the results of index vacuum execution time: 1. Updated evenly the table (every block has at least one dead tuple). master : 8.15 inlining : 4.84 not-inlinning : 5.01 2. Updated the middle of the table. master : 8.71 inlining : 3.51 not-inlinning : 3.58 3. Updated both the beginning and the tail of the table. master : 8.44 inlining : 3.46 not-inlinning : 3.50 There is no noticeable effect of inlining lazy_tid_reaped(). So it would be better to not do that. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
