From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
Date: | 2011-09-21 14:50:22 |
Message-ID: | 22754.1316616622@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 21.09.2011 17:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Even still, I
>> think that the 12.5% figure is pretty pessimistic - I've already sped
>> up the dell store query by almost that much, and that's with a patch
>> that was, due to circumstances, cobbled together.
> I'm not against making things faster, it's just that I haven't seen
> solid evidence yet that this will help. Just provide a best-case test
> case for this that shows a huge improvement, and I'll shut up. If the
> improvement is only modest, then let's discuss how big it is and whether
> it's worth the code ugliness this causes.
The other question that I'm going to be asking is whether it's not
possible to get most of the same improvement with a much smaller code
footprint. I continue to suspect that getting rid of the SQL function
impedance-match layer (myFunctionCall2Coll etc) would provide most of
whatever gain is to be had here, without nearly as large a cost in code
size and maintainability, and with the extra benefit that the speedup
would also be available to non-core datatypes.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-09-21 15:03:15 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
Previous Message | Linas Virbalas | 2011-09-21 14:44:30 | Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load |