Обсуждение: Use list_delete_xxxcell O(1) instead of list_delete_ptr O(N) in some places
Hi
I found some code places call list_delete_ptr can be replaced by list_delete_xxxcell which can be faster.
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
index db54a6b..61ef7c8 100644
--- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
+++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
@@ -1005,8 +1005,8 @@ sort_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root,
/* Make a pathkey list with this guy first */
if (l != list_head(all_pathkeys))
outerkeys = lcons(front_pathkey,
- list_delete_ptr(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
- front_pathkey));
+ list_delete_nth_cell(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
+ foreach_current_index(l)));
else
outerkeys = all_pathkeys; /* no work at first one... */
diff --git a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
index fe777c3..d0f15b8 100644
--- a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
+++ b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
@@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ adjustJoinTreeList(Query *parsetree, bool removert, int rt_index)
if (IsA(rtr, RangeTblRef) &&
rtr->rtindex == rt_index)
{
- newjointree = list_delete_ptr(newjointree, rtr);
+ newjointree = list_delete_cell(newjointree, l);
Best regards,
houzj
Вложения
Re: Use list_delete_xxxcell O(1) instead of list_delete_ptr O(N) in some places
От
Luc Vlaming
Дата:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation: not tested Patch applies cleanly on master & 13 and installcheck-world runs on 13 & master. Seem to follow the new style of using morethe expressive macro's for the list interface, so looks good to me. The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
Re: Use list_delete_xxxcell O(1) instead of list_delete_ptr O(N) in some places
От
David Rowley
Дата:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 15:45, Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> I found some code places call list_delete_ptr can be replaced by list_delete_xxxcell which can be faster.
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> index db54a6b..61ef7c8 100644
> --- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> @@ -1005,8 +1005,8 @@ sort_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root,
> /* Make a pathkey list with this guy first */
> if (l != list_head(all_pathkeys))
> outerkeys = lcons(front_pathkey,
> - list_delete_ptr(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
> - front_pathkey));
> + list_delete_nth_cell(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
> +
foreach_current_index(l)));
> else
> outerkeys = all_pathkeys; /* no work at first one... */
That looks ok to me. It would be more optimal if we had a method to
move an element to the front of a list, or to any specified position,
but I can't imagine it's worth making such a function just for that.
So what you have there seems fine.
> diff --git a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> index fe777c3..d0f15b8 100644
> --- a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> +++ b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ adjustJoinTreeList(Query *parsetree, bool removert, int rt_index)
> if (IsA(rtr, RangeTblRef) &&
> rtr->rtindex == rt_index)
> {
> - newjointree = list_delete_ptr(newjointree, rtr);
> + newjointree = list_delete_cell(newjointree, l);
I think you may as well just use newjointree =
foreach_delete_current(newjointree, l);. The comment about why the
list_delete is ok inside a foreach is then irrelevant since
foreach_delete_current() is designed for deleting the current foreach
cell.
Looking around for other places I found two more in equivclass.c.
These two do require an additional moving part to keep track of the
index we want to delete, so they're not quite as clear cut a win to
do. However, I don't think tracking the index makes the code overly
complex, so I'm thinking they're both fine to do. Does anyone think
differently?
Updated patch attached.
David
Вложения
RE: Use list_delete_xxxcell O(1) instead of list_delete_ptr O(N) in some places
От
"Hou, Zhijie"
Дата:
> > I found some code places call list_delete_ptr can be replaced by
> list_delete_xxxcell which can be faster.
> >
> > diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> > b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> > index db54a6b..61ef7c8 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
> > @@ -1005,8 +1005,8 @@ sort_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root,
> > /* Make a pathkey list with this guy first */
> > if (l != list_head(all_pathkeys))
> > outerkeys = lcons(front_pathkey,
> > -
> list_delete_ptr(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
> > -
> front_pathkey));
> > +
> list_delete_nth_cell(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
> > +
> > + foreach_current_index(l)));
> > else
> > outerkeys = all_pathkeys; /* no work at
> first one... */
>
> That looks ok to me. It would be more optimal if we had a method to move
> an element to the front of a list, or to any specified position, but I can't
> imagine it's worth making such a function just for that.
> So what you have there seems fine.
>
> > diff --git a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > index fe777c3..d0f15b8 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/rewrite/rewriteHandler.c
> > @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ adjustJoinTreeList(Query *parsetree, bool removert,
> int rt_index)
> > if (IsA(rtr, RangeTblRef) &&
> > rtr->rtindex == rt_index)
> > {
> > - newjointree =
> list_delete_ptr(newjointree, rtr);
> > + newjointree =
> > + list_delete_cell(newjointree, l);
>
> I think you may as well just use newjointree =
> foreach_delete_current(newjointree, l);. The comment about why the
> list_delete is ok inside a foreach is then irrelevant since
> foreach_delete_current() is designed for deleting the current foreach cell.
>
> Looking around for other places I found two more in equivclass.c.
> These two do require an additional moving part to keep track of the index
> we want to delete, so they're not quite as clear cut a win to do. However,
> I don't think tracking the index makes the code overly complex, so I'm
> thinking they're both fine to do. Does anyone think differently?
>
> Updated patch attached.
>
Thanks for reviewing the patch!
And after checking the code again and I found two more places which can be improved.
1.
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
@@ -1702,7 +1702,7 @@ transformMultiAssignRef(ParseState *pstate, MultiAssignRef *maref)
*/
if (maref->colno == maref->ncolumns)
pstate->p_multiassign_exprs =
- list_delete_ptr(pstate->p_multiassign_exprs, tle);
+ list_delete_last(pstate->p_multiassign_exprs);
Based on the logic above in function transformMultiAssignRef,
I found 'tle' is always the last one in list ' pstate->p_multiassign_exprs ' ,
So list_delete_last seems can be used here.
2.
+ nameEl_idx = foreach_current_index(option);
}
}
@@ -405,7 +407,7 @@ generateSerialExtraStmts(CreateStmtContext *cxt, ColumnDef *column,
}
sname = rv->relname;
/* Remove the SEQUENCE NAME item from seqoptions */
- seqoptions = list_delete_ptr(seqoptions, nameEl);
+ seqoptions = list_delete_nth_cell(seqoptions, nameEl_idx);
Add a new var ' nameEl_idx ' to catch the index.
Best regards,
houzj
Вложения
Re: Use list_delete_xxxcell O(1) instead of list_delete_ptr O(N) in some places
От
David Rowley
Дата:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 16:42, Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > And after checking the code again and I found two more places which can be improved. > > 1. > --- a/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c > +++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c > @@ -1702,7 +1702,7 @@ transformMultiAssignRef(ParseState *pstate, MultiAssignRef *maref) > */ > if (maref->colno == maref->ncolumns) > pstate->p_multiassign_exprs = > - list_delete_ptr(pstate->p_multiassign_exprs, tle); > + list_delete_last(pstate->p_multiassign_exprs); > > Based on the logic above in function transformMultiAssignRef, > I found 'tle' is always the last one in list ' pstate->p_multiassign_exprs ' , > So list_delete_last seems can be used here. Yeah. After a bit of looking I agree. There's a similar assumption there already with: /* * Second or later column in a multiassignment. Re-fetch the * transformed SubLink or RowExpr, which we assume is still the last * entry in p_multiassign_exprs. */ Assert(pstate->p_multiassign_exprs != NIL); tle = (TargetEntry *) llast(pstate->p_multiassign_exprs); > 2. > > + nameEl_idx = foreach_current_index(option); > } > } > > @@ -405,7 +407,7 @@ generateSerialExtraStmts(CreateStmtContext *cxt, ColumnDef *column, > } > sname = rv->relname; > /* Remove the SEQUENCE NAME item from seqoptions */ > - seqoptions = list_delete_ptr(seqoptions, nameEl); > + seqoptions = list_delete_nth_cell(seqoptions, nameEl_idx); > > Add a new var ' nameEl_idx ' to catch the index. Yeah. That looks fine too. Pushed. David