| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inline newNode() |
| Date: | 2002-10-09 21:13:47 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0210091829561.928-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane writes:
> If you use memset() instead of MemSet(), I'm afraid you're going to blow
> off most of the performance gain this was supposed to achieve.
Can someone explain to me why memset() would ever be better than MemSet()?
Also, shouldn't GCC (at least 3.0 or later) inline memset() automatically?
What's the result of using -finline (or your favorite compiler's
inlining flag)?
And has someone wondered why the GEQO code needs so many new nodes?
Perhaps a more lightweight data representation for internal use could be
appropriate?
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 21:15:23 | Re: inline newNode() |
| Previous Message | Laurette Cisneros | 2002-10-09 20:18:51 | Re: pgsql 7.2.3 crash |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 21:15:23 | Re: inline newNode() |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 18:32:57 | Re: inline newNode() |