postgres replication: Eager string decoding #32020
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The postgres replication implementation represented rows of data as `Vec<Option<Vec<u8>>>`, which is accurate but potentially inefficient. Instead, we switch to `Row` containing `Datum::String` or `Datum::Null`. This causes us to do less work in total, with a slight caveat that it is _different_ work on the replication worker. I'm not sure if cloning Bytes into the nested vector is more work than constructing a `Row`, but there is a possibility for performance changes. A `Row` certainly is more compact in memory. Related: MaterializeInc/database-issues#9125 Fixes: MaterializeInc/database-issues#9123 Signed-off-by: Moritz Hoffmann <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The postgres replication implementation represented rows of data as
Vec<Option<Vec<u8>>>, which is accurate but potentially inefficient.Instead, we switch to
RowcontainingDatum::StringorDatum::Null. This causes us to do less work in total, with a slight caveat that it is different work on the replication worker. I'm not sure if cloning Bytes into the nested vector is more work than constructing aRow, but there is a possibility for performance changes. ARowcertainly is more compact in memory.Related: MaterializeInc/database-issues#9125
Fixes: MaterializeInc/database-issues#9123
Signed-off-by: Moritz Hoffmann [email protected]
Checklist
$T ⇔ Proto$Tmapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with aT-protolabel.