Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: inline newNode()

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: inline newNode()
Date: 2002-10-09 21:13:47
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0210091829561.928-100000@localhost.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane writes:

> If you use memset() instead of MemSet(), I'm afraid you're going to blow
> off most of the performance gain this was supposed to achieve.

Can someone explain to me why memset() would ever be better than MemSet()?

Also, shouldn't GCC (at least 3.0 or later) inline memset() automatically?

What's the result of using -finline (or your favorite compiler's
inlining flag)?

And has someone wondered why the GEQO code needs so many new nodes?
Perhaps a more lightweight data representation for internal use could be
appropriate?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-10-09 21:15:23
Subject: Re: inline newNode()
Previous:From: Laurette CisnerosDate: 2002-10-09 20:18:51
Subject: Re: pgsql 7.2.3 crash

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-10-09 21:15:23
Subject: Re: inline newNode()
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-10-09 18:32:57
Subject: Re: inline newNode()

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group