| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r) |
| Date: | 2024-11-01 07:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvq=udkVyRBTvU+K6Ov4VTOzDQpG8=081-8+bNQTTTHxFQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 20:14, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> 2) On HEAD at 49d6c7d8daba:
> .LVL299:
> .loc 1 131 16 is_stmt 0 discriminator 1 view .LVU524
> cmpq $8192, %rbx
> je .L419
>
> 3) With the patch sent at [1]:
> .LVL306:
> .loc 3 201 23 is_stmt 1 discriminator 1 view .LVU545
> cmpq $8192, %rbx
> jne .L417
>
> So it does not matter one way or another for 2) or 3), does it?
The patch in [1] will fix the bug. But I'm still concerned about the
performance implications of moving to byte-at-a-time processing. There
are about 8 times more instructions being expected to do the same
work.
David
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZyR02ofHiWG1HmLI@paquier.xyz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-11-01 07:36:45 | Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r) |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2024-11-01 07:26:45 | Re: Wrong result when enable_partitionwise_join is on if collation of PartitionKey and Column is different. |