| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Make tuple deformation faster |
| Date: | 2025-03-05 18:40:28 |
| Message-ID: | 08b2bf79151b498ad296e8ace65aa61100d48a6f.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2025-03-06 at 01:07 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached the results. The 3990x with clang looks good, but the
> rest are mostly slower.
I am still curious why.
If it's due to compiler misoptimization, is that kind of thing often
misoptimized, or is there something we're doing in particular?
Even if we don't have answers, it might be worth adding a brief comment
that we empirically determined that booleans are faster than bitfields
or flags. In the future, maybe compilers mostly get this right, and we
want to change to bitfields.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-03-05 18:41:20 | Re: Should we add debug_parallel_query=regress to CI? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-03-05 18:34:12 | Re: Should we add debug_parallel_query=regress to CI? |