On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Mike Lewis <mikelikespie(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > 1. As-is, it's a significant *pessimization* for small arrays, because
>> > the heap_tuple_untoast_attr_slice code does a palloc/copy even when one
>> > is not needed because the data is already not toasted. I think there
>> > needs to be a code path that avoids that.
>> This seems like it shouldn't be too hard to fix, and I think it should be
> Do you have any suggestions where to start? I do agree that this should be
> fixed as well. I don't have too much time to dedicate to this project. I
> can try to put in some time this weekend though if it isn't looking too bad.
Perhaps you could check VARATT_IS_EXTENDED. If that's true, then
slice it, but if it's false, then just use the original datum. You
might want to wrap that up in a function rather than cramming it all
in the macro definition, though.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alexander Korotkov||Date: 2010-07-29 19:38:56|
|Subject: Re: knngist - 0.8|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-29 18:35:12|
|Subject: Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1|