From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 16:13:20 |
Message-ID: | 4E7A0D20.1060709@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21.09.2011 18:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, we'd have to negotiate what the API ought to be. What I'm
> envisioning is that datatypes could provide alternate comparison
> functions that are designed to be qsort-callable rather than
> SQL-callable. As such, they could not have entries in pg_proc, so
> it seems like there's no ready way to represent them in the catalogs.
Quite aside from this qsort-thing, it would be nice to have versions of
all simple functions that could be called without the FunctionCall
overhead. So instead of:
FunctionCall2(&flinfo_for_int4pl, 1, 2)
you could do simply
int4pl_fastpath(1,2)
I'm not sure how big an effect this would have, but it seems like it
could shave some cycles across the system.
We could have an extended version of the PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 macro that
would let you register the fastpath function:
PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(int4pl, int4pl_fastpath);
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2011-09-21 16:19:43 | DECLARE CURSOR must not contain data-modifying statements in WITH |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-21 16:13:07 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |