| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inline newNode() |
| Date: | 2002-10-09 04:12:12 |
| Message-ID: | 16989.1034136732@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, here is a version of newNode that is a macro.
If you use memset() instead of MemSet(), I'm afraid you're going to blow
off most of the performance gain this was supposed to achieve.
> Does anyone have additional suggestions? The only thing I can suggest
> is to make a clear-memory version of palloc because palloc always calls
> MemoryContextAlloc() so I can put it in there. How does that sound?
I do not think palloc should auto-zero memory. Hard to explain why,
but it just feels like a bad decision. One point is that the MemSet
has to be inlined or it cannot compile-out the tests on _len. palloc
can't treat the length as a compile-time constant.
> The regression tests do pass with this patch, so functionally it works
> fine.
Speed is the issue here, not functionality...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 04:21:41 | Re: inline newNode() |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2002-10-09 02:19:34 | Italian version of the PostgreSQL "Advocacy and Marketing" site is ready |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 04:21:41 | Re: inline newNode() |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 00:07:30 | Re: inline newNode() |