| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |
| Date: | 2005-08-10 15:37:57 |
| Message-ID: | 26555.1123688277@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, I think one thing we've learned is that there are important parts
> of the code, those that are in the data path (COPY, sort, spill to
> disk, etc) that are in dire need of optimization. For instance, the
> fgetc() pattern should be banned everywhere in the data path.
Luke, I dislike whacking people upside the head, but this discussion
seems to presume that raw speed on Intel platforms is the only thing
that matters. We have a few other concerns. Portability, readability,
maintainability, and correctness all trump platform-specific
optimizations. The COPY patch as presented lost badly on all those
counts, and you are lucky that it didn't get rejected completely.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-08-10 15:39:24 | Re: 5 new entries for FAQ |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-10 15:29:49 | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |