On 2024-01-03 We 08:45, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 6:57 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> Yeah. One idea I had yesterday was to stash the field names, which in
>> large JSON docs tent to be pretty repetitive, in a hash table instead of
>> pstrduping each instance. The name would be valid until the end of the
>> parse, and would only need to be duplicated by the callback function if
>> it were needed beyond that. That's not the case currently with the
>> parse_manifest code. I'll work on using a hash table.
> IMHO, this is not a good direction. Anybody who is parsing JSON
> probably wants to discard the duplicated labels and convert other
> heavily duplicated strings to enum values or something. (e.g. if every
> record has {"color":"red"} or {"color":"green"}). So the hash table
> lookups will cost but won't really save anything more than just
> freeing the memory not needed, but will probably be more expensive.
I don't quite follow.
Say we have a document with an array 1m objects, each with a field
called "color". As it stands we'll allocate space for that field name 1m
times. Using a hash table we'd allocated space for it once. And
allocating the memory isn't free, although it might be cheaper than
doing hash lookups.
I guess we can benchmark it and see what the performance impact of using
a hash table might be.
Another possibility would be simply to have the callback free the field
name after use. for the parse_manifest code that could be a one-line
addition to the code at the bottom of json_object_manifest_field_start().
>> The parse_manifest code does seem to pfree the scalar values it no
>> longer needs fairly well, so maybe we don't need to to anything there.
> Hmm. This makes me wonder if you've measured how much actual leakage there is?
No I haven't. I have simply theorized about how much memory we might
consume if nothing were done by the callers to free the memory.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com