On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 12:56, Greg Stark wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Uh, what? Why would an int8 need to be "dynamically allocated
> > repeatedly"?
> Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm extrapolating from a comment Tom Lane made that
> profiling showed that the bulk of the cost in count() went to allocating
> int8s. He commented that this could be optimized by having count() and sum()
> bypass the regular api. I don't have the original message handy.
I'm still confused: int64 should be stack-allocated, AFAICS. Tom, do you
recall what the issue here is?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-10-27 18:52:12|
|Subject: Re: Various performance questions |
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2003-10-27 18:01:12|
|Subject: Re: Very Poor Insert Performance|