Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r)
Date: 2024-10-28 15:08:31
Message-ID: 3969083.1730128111@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:
> It seems to me that [reversing the loop direction] is more optimized.

That's far from clear: you're ignoring the possibility that memory
access logic is better optimized for forward scanning than reverse
scanning. I'd stick with the forward scan without some extremely
detailed testing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-10-28 15:12:59 Re: Assertion failure when autovacuum drops orphan temp indexes.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-10-28 15:05:38 Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan