On 09/21/2011 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Can we get a patch so we can do benchmarks on this?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2011-09-21 15:15:41|
|Subject: sequence locking|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-21 14:50:22|
|Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |