| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Jeremy Kerr <jk(at)ozlabs(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen |
| Date: | 2009-06-26 15:39:51 |
| Message-ID: | 7337.1246030791@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de writes:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 05:03:11PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> It's becoming somewhat tricky, but maybe the test to do for the
>> optimisation to get used is n >= threshold && str[n-6] == 0x20, la
>> Boyer/Moore?
> That's cute. What about comparing the last aligned word which completely
> fits in the buffer? Something along the lines of (assuming four-byte
> words)
> * (int*) (4 * ((int) &buf[0]) / 4)
We're trying to avoid adding cycles to the optimization-is-useless case.
The more expensive this test gets, the slower the unoptimizable case
becomes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-06-26 16:15:44 | Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen |
| Previous Message | tomas | 2009-06-26 15:29:06 | Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen |