Horton

Re: Various performance questions

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dror Matalon <dror@zapatec.com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-10-27T18:40:06Z
Lists: pgsql-performance 
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 12:56, Greg Stark wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > Uh, what? Why would an int8 need to be "dynamically allocated
> > repeatedly"?
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm extrapolating from a comment Tom Lane made that
> profiling showed that the bulk of the cost in count() went to allocating
> int8s. He commented that this could be optimized by having count() and sum()
> bypass the regular api. I don't have the original message handy.

I'm still confused: int64 should be stack-allocated, AFAICS. Tom, do you
recall what the issue here is?

-Neil