From: | Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Varlena and binary |
Date: | 2011-02-07 21:57:39 |
Message-ID: | 201102072257.39152.rsmogura@softperience.eu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Just from curious may I ask in which direction this will go, and how this will
affect performance of text and binary format?
Actually I started to make smaller improvements, and I think about one big to
encode text (when client and server encoding are different) directly to
StringInfo, without intermediate buffer.
Thanks in advice
Radek
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> Monday 07 February 2011 17:12:07
> =?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= <mail(at)smogura(dot)eu> writes:
> > I'm sending small patch for textsend. It reduces unnecessary copies, and
> > memory usage for duplication of varlena data. May you look?
>
> This code will break the day that text and bytea don't have the same
> internal representation, which seems likely to be soon. Barring some
> compelling evidence of a major performance improvement obtainable this
> way, I don't think we want this patch.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-07 22:01:22 | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-07 21:14:20 | Re: More extension issues: ownership and search_path |