From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
Date: | 2011-09-21 16:04:21 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HNhd8daJjDt=fQotEqLEfBcBGXiS3DxXiMVnz_DrXfPSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> As such, they could not have entries in pg_proc, so
> it seems like there's no ready way to represent them in the catalogs.
Why couldn't they be in pg_proc with a bunch of opaque arguments like
the GIST opclass support functions?
I'm a bit puzzled what the arguments would look like. They would still
need to know the collation, nulls first/last flags, etc.
And calling it would still not be inlinable. So they would have to
check those flags on each invocation instead of having a piece of
straightline code that hard codes the behaviour with the right
behaviour inline. ISTM the hope for a speedup from the inlining
mostly came from the idea that the compiler might be able to hoist
this logic outside the loop (and I suppose implement n specialized
loops depending on the behaviour needed).
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-21 16:13:07 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-21 15:58:00 | Re: BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365) |