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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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?

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-10-27 18:52:12 Re: Various performance questions
Previous Message Greg Stark 2003-10-27 18:01:12 Re: Very Poor Insert Performance