From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Lewis <mikelikespie(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance Enhancement/Fix for Array Utility Functions |
Date: | 2010-07-29 19:29:40 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimY87Z6n+SnBAiP+vDbM4v7=tKeqHLxxJd9qgqC@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Mike Lewis <mikelikespie(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> > 1. As-is, it's a significant *pessimization* for small arrays, because
>> > the heap_tuple_untoast_attr_slice code does a palloc/copy even when one
>> > is not needed because the data is already not toasted. I think there
>> > needs to be a code path that avoids that.
>>
>> This seems like it shouldn't be too hard to fix, and I think it should be
>> fixed.
>
> Do you have any suggestions where to start? I do agree that this should be
> fixed as well. I don't have too much time to dedicate to this project. I
> can try to put in some time this weekend though if it isn't looking too bad.
Perhaps you could check VARATT_IS_EXTENDED. If that's true, then
slice it, but if it's false, then just use the original datum. You
might want to wrap that up in a function rather than cramming it all
in the macro definition, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2010-07-29 19:38:56 | Re: knngist - 0.8 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-29 18:35:12 | Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1 |