From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] TODO item: Implement Boyer-Moore searching (First time hacker) |
Date: | 2008-09-11 07:20:50 |
Message-ID: | 48C8C6D2.2010809@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
David Rowley wrote:
> The thing that surprised me was that string_to_array didn't perform as well.
> I expected single character searches to perform a little better. I can't
> think why it would be slower now.
Yes, that's strange. I tried to reproduce that here, with a CVS snapshot
before the patch, and after. With quick testing with psql and \timing
and the same query you had in that spreadsheet, I couldn't see that kind
of performance degradation. Oprofile suggests that, on the contrary,
slightly less time is spent in text_position_next() after the patch, and
slightly more in text_position_setup(). Together they account for ~10%
of CPU time in both tests, so a small difference there would be
insignificant anyway in that test case.
I think we're fine.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-09-11 08:38:21 | Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-11 06:24:57 | Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-09-11 12:39:01 | Re: still alive? |
Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-09-11 04:17:31 | Re: hash index improving v3 |