[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] box: use tuple_field_raw_by_part where possible

Vladislav Shpilevoy v.shpilevoy at tarantool.org
Wed Nov 25 01:33:44 MSK 2020

Thanks for the investigation!

>> On 14.11.2020 18:28, Serge Petrenko wrote:
>>> tuple_field_raw_by_part allows to use part's offset slot cache to bypass
>>> tuple field lookup in a JSON tree, which is involved even for plain
>>> tuples.
>> I am not sure I understand. How does it work in 1.10 then? It uses
>> tuple_field_by_part_raw, which in the end simply calls
>>     tuple_field_raw(format, data, field_map, part->fieldno);
>> Exactly what we had here. Why did anything change?
> tuple_field_raw() itself changed. On 1.10 it accesses field as an array element,
> then takes its offset slot and finds the shift in the field map.
> On 2.x it aliases to tuple_field_raw_by_path():
> finds the top-level field in the format's JSON tree, does a couple of
> checks for JSON paths and multikey indices and only then takes the offset
> like 1.10 did.
> But while tuple_field_raw_by_path() takes an offset slot hint,
> tuple_field_raw() doesn't use it, so its call always results in searching
> the JSON tree.

Aha, now I see. So tuple_field_raw used the offset slot but with tons of
unnecessary checks before that.

Looking at how much did we gain from removing a couple of 'ifs' from the
field map build, we could probably gain another portion of perf by
splitting huge tuple_field_raw_by_path into 2 parts. 1 part with non-NULL
path, and one with NULL path. Non-NULL path would simply use the root JSON
array like you did in the first patch, and would omit all checks
path !=/== NULL, whose count now is 3!!! in one function, at least.

	if (path == NULL && fieldno == 0) {
		return tuple;

	tuple_format_field_by_path() does another path == NULL

	if (path != NULL && field == NULL)
		goto parse;

Could be done with templates relatively trivial. We just make path
check a boolean template argument, and check it before checking the

Or we can literally split this function into 2 independent functions,
because it seems they will look quite different.

>>> Since both tuple_field_raw_by_part and tuple_field_raw are basically
>>> aliases to tuple_field_raw_by_path, prefer the former to the latter,
>>> since it takes advantage over key part's offset slot cache.
>> Besides, I can't find any info why do we need this 'offset slot cache'.
>> The comment above this member simply narrates the code, and I don't
>> understand the actual reason it was added. Did you manage to realize it?
>> Can you explain, please?
> Yep. This cache ameliorates the performance loss for looking the field up
> in JSON tree every time we need to access some tuple field by offset.
> Say, each time you call tuple_compare_slowpath and it gets to comparing
> field values, you'll look up the field in JSON tree to know its offset slot.
> You may have lots of calls to tuple_compare for different tuples but for
> the same set of key_parts. So instead of looking the field up on every
> comparison, you look it up once and remember its offset slot in the
> key part. Now next time you need offset slot access you don't need
> to look for the field in the JSON tree at all.
> Looks like initially this cache was intended to save us from some complex
> tree lookups, when path is actually not null.
> But the cache helps even for top-level field access. It helps skip not only
> the JSON tree lookup, but all the additional checks coming after it.
> So that's why I made use of it in this patch.

There must be a problem with these offset slots in case of space alter. If
we add a new index or remove another index, the existing tuples will have
2 formats in one index. Some tuples will have the old format, and some will
have the new one. With probably different offset slots for the same index
parts. Or not, but it does not matter - format->epoch will change anyway.

AFAIU, such a simple alter can make the offset slots almost not used, because
tuple_field_raw_by_part will reset them on each switch from tuple of one
format to a tuple of another format.

Maybe we don't want to optimize it though, since alter is not a common case.

More information about the Tarantool-patches mailing list