Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-09-26 15:04:20 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I assume this partially is just the additional layers of function calls
>> (psprintf, pvsnprintf, pg_vsnprintf, dopr) that are now done, in
>> addition to pretty much the same work as before (i.e. sprintf("%.*f")).

No, there are no additional layers that weren't there before ---
snprintf.c's snprintf() slots in directly where the platform's did before.

Well, ok, dopr() wasn't there before, but I trust you're not claiming
that glibc's implementation of snprintf() is totally flat either.

I think it's just that snprintf.c is a bit slower in this case. If you
look at glibc's implementation, they've expended a heck of a lot of code
and sweat on it. The only reason we could hope to beat it is that we're
prepared to throw out some functionality, like LC_NUMERIC handling.

> I'm *NOT* proposing that as the actual solution, but as a datapoint, it
> might be interesting that hardcoding the precision and thus allowing use
> ofusing strfromd() instead of sprintf yields a *better* runtime than
> master.

Interesting. strfromd() is a glibc-ism, and a fairly recent one at
that (my RHEL6 box doesn't seem to have it). But we could use it where
available. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a fast path for
the specific precision value(s) that float4/8out will actually use.

regards, tom lane