Re: profiling connection overhead
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2010-11-29T01:01:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Another question that would be worth asking here is whether the >> hand-baked MemSet macro still outruns memset on modern architectures. >> I think it's been quite a few years since that was last tested. > I know glibc has some sexy memset macros for cases where the size is a > constant. I'm not sure there's been much of an advance in the general > case though. This would tend to imply we should consider going the > other direction of having the caller of palloc0 do the zeroing > instead. Or making palloc0 a macro which expands to include calling > memset with the parameter inlined. Well, that was exactly the reason why we did it the way we do it. However, I think it's probably only node allocations where the size is likely to be constant and hence result in a win. Perhaps we should implement makeNode() differently from the general case. regards, tom lane