Re: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend

>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Can we go anywhere with this?
>
> Did anyone do anything with this already?

No one yet.

>
> > > ExecScan() seems to be the only func which calls SeqNext(), which in
> > > turn accounts for 60% of the calls to heap_getnext(), which does 80% of
> > > the calls to heapgettup().
> > >
> > > - Put SeqNext() into ExecScan() to lower function call overhead? [minimal optim.]
> > >
> > > - In heapgettup(), 50% is the func itself and 50% is called funcs.
> > >   Top four CPU consumers:
> > >     0.04    0.14    9924/9924        RelationGetBufferWithBuffer [148]
> > >     0.03    0.15    5642/5702        ReleaseAndReadBuffer [145]
> > >     0.10    0.00   26276/42896       nocachegetattr [158]
> > >     0.01    0.08    7111/9607        HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility [185]
> > >
> > >   RelationGetBufferWithBuffer() seems to be called from here only. If so, inline.
> > >
> > > - Looking at RelationGetBufferWithBuffer():
> > >     0.00    0.10    4603/32354       ReadBuffer [55]
> > >   ReadBuffer() is the biggest cpu consumer called by RelationGetBufferWithBuffer(). (55%)
> > >
> > >   -> *** 97% of ReadBuffer() CPU time is in calling ReadBufferWithBufferLock()
> > >
> > >   -> 85% of ReadBufferWithBufferLock() CPU time is in calling BufferAlloc().
> > >   -> ReadBufferWithBufferLock() is the only func calling BufferAlloc().
> > >   -> Conclusion: INLINE BufferAlloc().
> > >
> > > - Looking at BufferAlloc():
> > >     0.04    0.25   37974/37974       BufTableLookup [114]
> > >     0.10    0.00   32340/151781      SpinAcquire [81]
> > >     0.10    0.00   37470/40585       PinBuffer [209]
> > >     0.08    0.00   38478/43799       RelationGetLRelId [234]
> > >     0.04    0.00   37974/151781      SpinRelease [175]
> > >
> > >   -> 40% of BufferAlloc() CPU time is in calling BufTableLookup().
> > >   -> BufferAlloc() is the only func calling BufTableLookup().
> > >   -> Conclusion: INLINE BufTableLookup().
> > >
> > > - Looking at BufTableLookup():
> > >   86% of CPU time is in calling hash_search(). The rest is own time.
> > >
> > > - Looking at hash_search():
> > >     0.13    0.41  179189/179189      call_hash [69]
> > >     0.00    0.00       6/6           bucket_alloc [1084]
> > >   -> Conclusion: INLINE call_hash() [and bucket_alloc()] into hash_search().
> > >
> > > - Looking at call_hash():
> > >     0.37    0.00  171345/171345      tag_hash [94]
> > >     0.04    0.00    7844/7844        string_hash [348]
> > >   -> Conclusion: INLINE tag_hash() [and string_hash()] into call_hash().
> > >   -> Perhaps disk_hash() could be used in some way? It is currently #ifdef'd away.
> > >   -> Could we use a lookup table instead of doing hash calculations? Would not that
> > >   ->  be much faster?
> > >
> > >
> > > It looks to me as if there are too many levels of function calls.
> > > Perhaps all functions which are called by only one other func should be inlined?
>
> Isn't this a good solution? A function only called by one other function has
> its right to exist only for readability. And this optimization could be done
> automatically.

Wouldn't be such a big deal if it was not call so many times.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)