From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |
Date: | 2005-06-26 02:52:20 |
Message-ID: | BEE36674.7D25%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Alon,
> 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.
This is what it does:
void
appendStringInfoString(StringInfo str, const char *s)
{
appendBinaryStringInfo(str, s, strlen(s));
}
Then it does the memcpy within appendBinaryStringInfo(). This is an extra 2
function calls, one of them a strlen() of the total contents of the string
to that point for every copy to the bytebuffer. I'd expect this to be
slower for some of the use-cases we have.
If the StringInfo API were extended to use lengths...
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-06-26 03:02:51 | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |
Previous Message | Alon Goldshuv | 2005-06-26 01:31:08 | Re: COPY FROM performance improvements |