Improve performance of index-only scans with many index columns.

StoreIndexTuple was a loop over index_getattr, which is O(N^2)
if the index columns are variable-width, and the performance
impact is already quite visible at ten columns.  The obvious
move is to replace that with a call to index_deform_tuple ...
but that's *also* a loop over index_getattr.  Improve it to
be essentially a clone of heap_deform_tuple.

(There are a few other places that loop over all index columns
with index_getattr, and perhaps should be changed likewise,
but most of them don't seem performance-critical.  Anyway, the
rest would mostly only be interested in the index key columns,
which there aren't likely to be so many of.  Wide index tuples
are a new thing with INCLUDE.)

Konstantin Knizhnik

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e06b2d27-04fc-5c0e-bb8c-ecd72aa24959@postgrespro.ru
This commit is contained in:
Tom Lane 2019-03-03 16:57:14 -05:00
parent 78b408a20a
commit 80b9e9c466
2 changed files with 72 additions and 17 deletions

View File

@ -418,19 +418,80 @@ nocache_index_getattr(IndexTuple tup,
*
* The caller must allocate sufficient storage for the output arrays.
* (INDEX_MAX_KEYS entries should be enough.)
*
* This is nearly the same as heap_deform_tuple(), but for IndexTuples.
* One difference is that the tuple should never have any missing columns.
*/
void
index_deform_tuple(IndexTuple tup, TupleDesc tupleDescriptor,
Datum *values, bool *isnull)
{
int i;
int hasnulls = IndexTupleHasNulls(tup);
int natts = tupleDescriptor->natts; /* number of atts to extract */
int attnum;
char *tp; /* ptr to tuple data */
int off; /* offset in tuple data */
bits8 *bp; /* ptr to null bitmap in tuple */
bool slow = false; /* can we use/set attcacheoff? */
/* Assert to protect callers who allocate fixed-size arrays */
Assert(tupleDescriptor->natts <= INDEX_MAX_KEYS);
Assert(natts <= INDEX_MAX_KEYS);
for (i = 0; i < tupleDescriptor->natts; i++)
/* XXX "knows" t_bits are just after fixed tuple header! */
bp = (bits8 *) ((char *) tup + sizeof(IndexTupleData));
tp = (char *) tup + IndexInfoFindDataOffset(tup->t_info);
off = 0;
for (attnum = 0; attnum < natts; attnum++)
{
values[i] = index_getattr(tup, i + 1, tupleDescriptor, &isnull[i]);
Form_pg_attribute thisatt = TupleDescAttr(tupleDescriptor, attnum);
if (hasnulls && att_isnull(attnum, bp))
{
values[attnum] = (Datum) 0;
isnull[attnum] = true;
slow = true; /* can't use attcacheoff anymore */
continue;
}
isnull[attnum] = false;
if (!slow && thisatt->attcacheoff >= 0)
off = thisatt->attcacheoff;
else if (thisatt->attlen == -1)
{
/*
* We can only cache the offset for a varlena attribute if the
* offset is already suitably aligned, so that there would be no
* pad bytes in any case: then the offset will be valid for either
* an aligned or unaligned value.
*/
if (!slow &&
off == att_align_nominal(off, thisatt->attalign))
thisatt->attcacheoff = off;
else
{
off = att_align_pointer(off, thisatt->attalign, -1,
tp + off);
slow = true;
}
}
else
{
/* not varlena, so safe to use att_align_nominal */
off = att_align_nominal(off, thisatt->attalign);
if (!slow)
thisatt->attcacheoff = off;
}
values[attnum] = fetchatt(thisatt, tp + off);
off = att_addlength_pointer(off, thisatt->attlen, tp + off);
if (thisatt->attlen <= 0)
slow = true; /* can't use attcacheoff anymore */
}
}

View File

@ -269,23 +269,17 @@ IndexOnlyNext(IndexOnlyScanState *node)
static void
StoreIndexTuple(TupleTableSlot *slot, IndexTuple itup, TupleDesc itupdesc)
{
int nindexatts = itupdesc->natts;
Datum *values = slot->tts_values;
bool *isnull = slot->tts_isnull;
int i;
/*
* Note: we must use the tupdesc supplied by the AM in index_getattr, not
* the slot's tupdesc, in case the latter has different datatypes (this
* happens for btree name_ops in particular). They'd better have the same
* number of columns though, as well as being datatype-compatible which is
* something we can't so easily check.
* Note: we must use the tupdesc supplied by the AM in index_deform_tuple,
* not the slot's tupdesc, in case the latter has different datatypes
* (this happens for btree name_ops in particular). They'd better have
* the same number of columns though, as well as being datatype-compatible
* which is something we can't so easily check.
*/
Assert(slot->tts_tupleDescriptor->natts == nindexatts);
Assert(slot->tts_tupleDescriptor->natts == itupdesc->natts);
ExecClearTuple(slot);
for (i = 0; i < nindexatts; i++)
values[i] = index_getattr(itup, i + 1, itupdesc, &isnull[i]);
index_deform_tuple(itup, itupdesc, slot->tts_values, slot->tts_isnull);
ExecStoreVirtualTuple(slot);
}