| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Stepan Neretin <slpmcf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] avoid double scanning in function byteain |
| Date: | 2025-07-18 20:48:08 |
| Message-ID: | 2087323.1752871688@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I'm inclined to accept 0001, reject 0002, and move on. This doesn't
> seem like an area that's worth a huge amount of discussion.
Done that way. I made a couple more cosmetic changes and added
test cases for the double-backslash code path (which hadn't been
covered in byteaout either, I see now).
BTW, in my hands the microbenchmark that Stepan suggested shows the
committed version to be about 40% faster than before for long input.
So apparently the StringInfo-ification suggested in 0002 gave back
just about all the performance gain from 0001.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-07-18 20:52:29 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-07-18 20:48:00 | Re: Adding basic NUMA awareness |