Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-07T15:15:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Speed up conversion of signed integers to C strings.
- 4fc115b2e981 9.1.0 cited
-
Remove some unnecessary tests of pgstat_track_counts.
- f4d242ef9473 9.1.0 cited
-
Remove cvs keywords from all files.
- 9f2e21138693 9.1.0 cited
-
Code cleanup for function prototypes: change two K&R-style prototypes
- b9954fbb4ef2 8.3.0 cited
-
Use Min() instead of min() in qsort, for consistency and to avoid
- b38900c76776 8.2.0 cited
-
pgindent run for 8.2.
- f99a569a2ee3 8.2.0 cited
-
Switch over to using our own qsort() all the time, as has been proposed
- 6edd2b4a91bd 8.2.0 cited
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > There's some stuff that's debatable according to this criterion --- in > particular, I wondered whether it'd be worth having a fast path for > bttextcmp, especially if we pre-tested the collate_is_c condition and > had a separate version that just hardwired the memcmp code path. (The > idea of doing that was one reason I insisted on collation being known at > the setup step.) But it would still have to be prepared for detoasting, > so in the end I was unenthused. Anyone who feels like testing could try > to prove me wrong about it though. I think that'd definitely be worth investigating (although I'm not sure I have the time to do it myself any time real soon). >> Are you planning to do anything about #2 or #3? > > I am willing to do #2, but not right now; I feel what I need to do next > is go review SPGist. Yeah, makes sense. That one seems likely to be a challenge to absorb. > I don't believe that #2 blocks progress on #3 > anyway. I think #3 is in Peter's court, or yours if you want to do it. > > (BTW, I agree with your comments yesterday about trying to break down > the different aspects of what Peter did, and put as many of them as we > can into the non-inlined code paths.) Cool. Peter, can you rebase your patch and integrate it into the sortsupport framework that's now committed? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company