> On 9 Mar 2025, at 23:35, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 8 Mar 2025, at 17:15, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> +1 Still seems like a nice change to me too.
>
> Thanks, I actually had it staged to go in early next week.
..which was done yesterday, thanks for review!
--
Daniel Gustafsson
> On 8 Mar 2025, at 17:15, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>
> On 2/5/25 11:00 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> This fell off the ever-growing TODO again. Re-reading it I still think it's
>> a
>> good idea, it applied almost cleanly still and still gives a slight
>> performance
>> improvement along wit
On 2/5/25 11:00 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
This fell off the ever-growing TODO again. Re-reading it I still think it's a
good idea, it applied almost cleanly still and still gives a slight performance
improvement along with the more interesting refactoring which will make caching
of expression
> On 13 Sep 2024, at 15:01, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>
> On 9/10/24 10:54 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 22 Jul 2024, at 23:25, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>>>
>>> I have bench marked the two patches now and failed to measure any speedup
>>> or slowdown from the first patch (removing return) b
On 9/10/24 10:54 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 22 Jul 2024, at 23:25, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
I have bench marked the two patches now and failed to measure any speedup or
slowdown from the first patch (removing return) but I think it is a good idea
anyway.
For the second patch (optimize st
> On 22 Jul 2024, at 23:25, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>
> I have bench marked the two patches now and failed to measure any speedup or
> slowdown from the first patch (removing return) but I think it is a good idea
> anyway.
>
> For the second patch (optimize strict) I managed to measure a ~1% s
I have bench marked the two patches now and failed to measure any
speedup or slowdown from the first patch (removing return) but I think
it is a good idea anyway.
For the second patch (optimize strict) I managed to measure a ~1% speed
up for the following query "SELECT sum(x + y + 1) FROM t;"
On 7/4/24 6:26 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
2) We could generate functions which return void rather than NULL and therefore
not have to do a return at all but I am not sure that small optimization and
extra clarity would be worth the hassle. The current approach with adding
Assert() is ok with
> On 20 Jun 2024, at 17:22, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>
> On 10/12/23 11:48 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> I have looked at the patch and it still applies, builds and passes the test
> cases and I personally think these optimizations are pretty much no-brainers
> that we should do
On 6/20/24 5:22 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 10/12/23 11:48 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Thoughts?
I have looked at the patch and it still applies, builds and passes the
test cases and I personally think these optimizations are pretty much
no-brainers that we should do and it is a pity nob
On 10/12/23 11:48 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Thoughts?
I have looked at the patch and it still applies, builds and passes the
test cases and I personally think these optimizations are pretty much
no-brainers that we should do and it is a pity nobody has had the time
to review this patch.
> On 12 Oct 2023, at 19:52, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-10-12 13:24:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 12:48, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> The attached patch adds special-case expression steps for common sets of
>>> steps
>>> in the executor to shave a few cycles off during
Hi,
On 2023-10-12 13:24:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 12:48, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > The attached patch adds special-case expression steps for common sets of
> > steps
> > in the executor to shave a few cycles off during execution, and make the JIT
> > generated code si
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 22:54, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> EEOP_FUNCEXPR_STRICT_* (10M iterations):
> master : (7503.317, 7553.691, 7634.524)
> patched : (7422.756, 7455.120, 7492.393)
>
> pgbench:
> master : (3653.83, 3792.97, 3863.70)
> patched : (3743.04, 3830.02, 3869.80)
>
> T
On 12/10/2023 12:48, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
The attached patch adds special-case expression steps for common sets of steps
in the executor to shave a few cycles off during execution, and make the JIT
generated code simpler.
* Adds EEOP_FUNCEXPR_STRICT_1 and EEOP_FUNCEXPR_STRICT_2 for function
15 matches
Mail list logo
