| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Gasper Zejn <zejn(at)owca(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pglz performance |
| Date: | 2019-09-04 12:40:07 |
| Message-ID: | 862cac5c-60f5-0fde-9451-8b294472c57d@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-09-04 11:22, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> What about the two patches? Which one is better?
> On our observations pglz_decompress_hacked.patch is best for most of tested platforms.
> Difference is that pglz_decompress_hacked8.patch will not appply optimization if decompressed match is not greater than 8 bytes. This optimization was suggested by Tom, that's why we benchmarked it specifically.
The patches attached to the message I was replying to are named
0001-Use-memcpy-in-pglz-decompression-for-long-matches.patch
0001-Use-memcpy-in-pglz-decompression.patch
Are those the same ones?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2019-09-04 12:45:19 | Re: pglz performance |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-09-04 12:37:12 | Re: Plug-in common/logging.h with vacuumlo and oid2name |