On 1.1.2013 17:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> There was an earlier suggestion by Andres Freund to use memcmp()
> instead, but I don't see that in the latest posted version of the patch;
> was there a specific rationale for taking it out or it was just lost in
> the shuffle?

No, I've tried that approach with a comparator like this:

    static int
    rnode_comparator(const void * p1, const void * p2)
    {
            return memcmp(p1, p2, sizeof(RelFileNode));
    }

but it turned out to be slower than the current comparator. I've posted
some benchmark results and possible explanation on 20/12 (message
50D26FE8(dot)1040800(at)fuzzy(dot)cz).

If you could verify my results, that'd be great.

Tomas

In response to

• Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction at 2013-01-01 16:35:39 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Boszormenyi Zoltan	Date: 2013-01-01 16:48:48
	Subject: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Previous:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2013-01-01 16:35:39
	Subject: Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction