On 2022-07-25 12:04:19 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 08:59:57PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 01:08:57PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I wonder if we additionally / alternatively could use a faster method of
> >> searching the array linearly, e.g. using SIMD.
> >
> > I looked into using SIMD. The patch is attached, but it is only intended
> > for benchmarking purposes and isn't anywhere close to being worth serious
> > review. There may be a simpler/better way to implement the linear search,
> > but this seemed to work well. Overall, SIMD provided a decent improvement.
> > I had to increase the number of writers quite a bit in order to demonstrate
> > where the hash tables began winning. Here are the numbers:
> >
> > writers head simd hash
> > 256 663 632 694
> > 512 530 618 637
> > 768 489 544 573
> > 1024 364 508 562
> > 2048 185 306 485
> > 4096 146 197 441
> >
> > While it is unsurprising that the hash tables perform the best, there are a
> > couple of advantages to SIMD that might make that approach worth
> > considering. For one, there's really no overhead (i.e., you don't need to
> > sort the array or build a hash table), so we can avoid picking an arbitrary
> > threshold and just have one code path. Also, a SIMD implementation for a
> > linear search through an array of integers could likely be easily reused
> > elsewhere.
>
> From the discussion thus far, it seems there is interest in optimizing
> [sub]xip lookups, so I'd like to spend some time moving it forward. I
> think the biggest open question is which approach to take. Both the SIMD
> and hash table approaches seem viable, but I think I prefer the SIMD
> approach at the moment (see the last paragraph of quoted text for the
> reasons). What do folks think?
Agreed on all points.