| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid overhead with fprintf related functions |
| Date: | 2022-09-09 21:53:54 |
| Message-ID: | 255610.1662760434@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-09-09 21:54:42 | Re: Introduce wait_for_subscription_sync for TAP tests |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2022-09-09 21:49:32 | Re: Avoid overhead with fprintf related functions |