|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-05-10 12:09:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * I find the ARRAY_ITER_VARS/ARRAY_ITER_NEXT macros rather ugly. I don't
>>> buy the argument that turning them into functions will be slower. I'd
>>> bet the contrary on common platforms.
>> Perhaps; do you want to do some testing and see?
> I've added new iterator functions using a on-stack state variable and
> array_iter_setup/next functions pretty analogous to the macros. And then
> converted arrayfuncs.c to use them.
I confirm that this doesn't seem to be any slower (at least not on a
compiler with inline functions). And it's certainly less ugly, so I've
> Similarly using inline funcs for AARR_NDIMS/HASNULL does not appear to
> hamper performance and gets rid of the multiple evaluation risk.
I'm less excited about that part though. The original ARR_FOO macros
mostly have multiple-evaluation risks as well, and that's been totally
academic so far. By the time you get done dealing with the
STATIC_IF_INLINE dance, it's quite messy to have these be inline
functions, and I am not seeing a useful return from adding the mess.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2015-05-14 00:30:42||Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory|
|Previous Message||Fabrízio de Royes Mello||2015-05-14 00:26:08||Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE|