From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 1C37B2F30B for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UauhYhjC6drh for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp61.i.mail.ru (smtp61.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id CACCE2F30A for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] box: run checks on insertions in LUA spaces References: <18232b7e-6985-1349-706c-47d07fb33e45@tarantool.org> From: Kirill Shcherbatov Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 10:21:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <18232b7e-6985-1349-706c-47d07fb33e45@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Vladislav Shpilevoy > Please, proceed with next patches. We need to > make a single Vdbe for all checks in a separate > commit. > > There is also a new proposal for benchmark. Lets > compare SQL CHECKs with tuple validation in Lua > before insertion, and see what is faster. Please, > write down somewhere all our planned benchmarks so > as no to forget something. > > Totally: > 1) bench CHECKs before your patch via pure SQL > 2) bench before your patch via checks done in Lua > before insertion > 3) bench after patch via pure SQL > 4) bench via Lua DML > > After single Vdbe is implemented, bench 3 and 4 again. Hi! Thank you for review an fixes! They are looking appropriately. I squashed them and fixed commit headers where necessary. I'll try to do what you've mention as soon as possible (don't know, what has higher priority - this or functional indexes fixes). However, can we merge the patch up to this point now?