|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <a(dot)kuzmenkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Here's a version of this patch rebased over commit 625b38ea0.
That commit's fix for the possibly-expensive memset means that we need
to reconsider performance numbers for this patch. I re-ran my previous
tests, and it's still looking like this is a substantial win, as it makes
snprintf.c faster than the native snprintf for most non-float cases.
We're still stuck at something like 10% penalty for float cases.
While there might be value in implementing our own float printing code,
I have a pretty hard time getting excited about the cost/benefit ratio
of that. I think that what we probably really ought to do here is hack
float4out/float8out to bypass the extra overhead, as in the 0002 patch
For reference, I attach the testbed I'm using now plus some results.
I wasn't able to get my cranky NetBSD system up today, so I don't
have results for that. However, I did add recent glibc (Fedora 28)
to the mix, and I was interested to discover that they seem to have
added a fast-path for format strings that are exactly "%s", just as
NetBSD did. I wonder if we should reconsider our position on doing
that. It'd be a simple enough addition...
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2018-10-02 22:04:33||Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c|
|Previous Message||Robbie Harwood||2018-10-02 21:11:44||Re: [PATCH v19] GSSAPI encryption support|