Pavel Stehule писал(а) 2025-02-26 22:34:
hI
I can confirm 60% speedup for execution of function fx and fx3 - both
functions are very primitive, so for real code the benefit can be
higher
Unfortunately, there is about 5% slowdown for inlined code, and for
just plpgsql code too.
I tested fx4
create or replace function fx4(int) returns int immutable as $$ begin
return $1 + $1; end $$ language plpgsql;
and fx2
create or replace function fx2(int) returns int as $$ select 2 * $1;
$$
language sql immutable;
and execution of patched code is about 5% slower. It is strange so
this patch has a negative impact on plpgsql execution.
Regards
Pavel
Hi. I've tried to reproduce slowdown and couldn't.
create or replace function fx4(int) returns int immutable as $$ begin
return $1 + $1; end $$ language plpgsql;
do $$
begin
for i in 1..5000000 loop
perform fx4((random()*100)::int); -- or fx2
end loop;
end;
$$;
OLD results:
Time: 8268.614 ms (00:08.269)
Time: 8178.836 ms (00:08.179)
Time: 8306.694 ms (00:08.307)
New (patched) results:
Time: 7743.945 ms (00:07.744)
Time: 7803.109 ms (00:07.803)
Time: 7736.735 ms (00:07.737)
Not sure why new is faster (perhaps, some noise?) - looking at perf
flamegraphs I don't see something evident.
create or replace function fx2(int) returns int as $$ select 2 * $1; $$
language sql immutable;
do $$
begin
for i in 1..5000000 loop
perform fx2((random()*100)::int); -- or fx2
end loop;
end;
$$;
OLD results:
Time: 5346.471 ms (00:05.346)
Time: 5359.222 ms (00:05.359)
Time: 5316.747 ms (00:05.317)
New (patched) results:
Time: 5188.363 ms (00:05.188)
Time: 5225.322 ms (00:05.225)
Time: 5203.667 ms (00:05.204)
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional
