From: | "Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |
Date: | 2005-06-26 01:31:08 |
Message-ID: | BEE3536C.6185%agoldshuv@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Hmm, now that I look back at them I can't remember why I thought it is
slower. Certainly using appendStringInfoCharMacro for every char is very
slow, but I could probably use appendStringInfoString and it should be as
fast as using the bytebuffer, they both do a straight forward memcpy.
Alon.
On 6/25/05 4:27 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
>> A struct "bytebuffer" is used instead of a StringInfoData for storing the
>> line and attributes. A StringInfoData is actually really cool and useful,
>> but we don't really need it's formatting capabilities in COPY FROM (as far
>> as I know), and so the bytebuffer is more straightfoward and faster.
>
> Is it really faster than appendStringInfoString or
> appendBinaryStringInfo?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-06-26 02:52:20 | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |
Previous Message | Petr Jelínek | 2005-06-26 01:27:17 | Re: limiting connections per user/database |