Re: Avoid overhead with fprintf related functions

On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 05:53:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Em sex., 9 de set. de 2022 às 13:20, Nathan Bossart <
>> nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
>>> I agree with David [0]. But if you can demonstrate a performance gain,
>>> perhaps it's worth considering a subset of these changes in hot paths.
>
>> head:
>> Time: 418,210 ms
>> Time: 419,588 ms
>> Time: 424,713 ms
>
>> fprintf patch:
>> Time: 416,919 ms
>> Time: 416,246 ms
>> Time: 416,237 ms
>
> That is most certainly not enough gain to justify a large amount
> of code churn. In fact, given that this is probably pretty
> platform-dependent and you've checked only one platform, I don't
> think I'd call this a sufficient case for even a one-line change.

Agreed.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com