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

Re: Various performance questions

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dror Matalon <dror(at)zapatec(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Various performance questions
Date: 2003-10-27 18:40:06
Message-ID: 1067280005.463.48.camel@tokyo (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 12:56, Greg Stark wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Uh, what? Why would an int8 need to be "dynamically allocated
> > repeatedly"?
> Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm extrapolating from a comment Tom Lane made that
> profiling showed that the bulk of the cost in count() went to allocating
> int8s. He commented that this could be optimized by having count() and sum()
> bypass the regular api. I don't have the original message handy.

I'm still confused: int64 should be stack-allocated, AFAICS. Tom, do you
recall what the issue here is?


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-27 18:52:12
Subject: Re: Various performance questions
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2003-10-27 18:01:12
Subject: Re: Very Poor Insert Performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group