From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Parsing speed (was Re: pgstats_initstats() cost) |
Date: | 2003-08-12 20:41:30 |
Message-ID: | 16354.1060720890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> You probably know but I'll quickly outline it to point out the
> differences, as I see them, from the 'COPY' ability. Basically the user
> defines their own C structure and then malloc's an array of them. The
> user then tells the database the type, offset from start of structure
> and the skip (size of structure) for each column returned by the select
> statement. The user can then do 'bulk' grabs with a single command into
> the memory space allocated, doing more than one and changing the offsets
> inbetween if more is returned than was initially allocated for. The
> user can realloc or allocate new segments and do their own handling of
> the segments if they choose.
[shrug] That seems like a substantial increase in API complexity for
at best marginal performance gains. What does it gain for the user to
malloc space rather than libpq?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-12 20:51:23 | Re: Parsing speed (was Re: pgstats_initstats() cost) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-12 20:37:33 | Re: Parsing speed (was Re: pgstats_initstats() cost) |