From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Alex Tokarev <dwalin(at)dwalin(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of int columns, very slow COPY FROM) |
Date: | 2018-07-18 18:34:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZzSV4p+HAwm42VcEcL=WQQ7su1g1yox7VhFvfJz2AFzw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> FWIW, here's a rebased version of this patch. Could probably be polished
> further. One might argue that we should do a bit more wide ranging
> changes, to convert scanint8 and pg_atoi to be also unified. But it
> might also just be worthwhile to apply without those, given the
> performance benefit.
Wouldn't hurt to do that one too, but might be OK to just do this
much. Questions:
1. Why the error message changes? If there's a good reason, it should
be done as a separate commit, or at least well-documented in the
commit message.
2. Does the likely/unlikely stuff make a noticeable difference?
3. If this is a drop-in replacement for pg_atoi, why not just recode
pg_atoi this way -- or have it call this -- and leave the callers
unchanged?
4. Are we sure this is faster on all platforms, or could it work out
the other way on, say, BSD?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2018-07-18 18:37:26 | Background worker/idle sessions and caching |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-07-18 18:30:53 | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-19 20:32:12 | Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of int columns, very slow COPY FROM) |
Previous Message | Imre Samu | 2018-07-18 17:35:16 | Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case |