| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] memory dilemma |
| Date: | 1999-12-27 15:35:37 |
| Message-ID: | 26058.946308937@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> not use cache - hmm.. but I like fast routines (my current
> to_char() implementation is faster (20-50%) than current
> date_part()).
I like that one. Anything else is a potential memory leak, and I really
find it hard to believe that the speed of to_char() itself is going to
be a critical factor in a real-world application. You have client-to-
backend communication, parsing, planning, I/O, etc that are all going
to swamp out the cost of a single function.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-27 15:42:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Unlimited query length - the final chapter (aka pg_dump) |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 1999-12-27 14:52:24 | Re: [HACKERS] ecpg enhance patch |