From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: inline newNode() |
Date: | 2002-10-11 23:07:04 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0210120047180.928-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> > > I assume the GEQO results he is seeing is only for a tests, and that the
> > > macro version of newNode will help in all cases.
> >
> > Well are we just assuming here or are we fixing actual problems based on
> > real analyses?
>
> What is your point? He is testing GEQO, but I assume other places would
> see a speedup from inlining newNode.
That's exactly my point: You're assuming.
Of course everything would be faster if we inline it, but IMHO that's the
compiler's job.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-11 23:35:14 | Re: inline newNode() |
Previous Message | Giles Lean | 2002-10-11 22:54:48 | Re: contrib/fixchar (Was: Large databases, performance) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-11 23:07:52 | Re: INSTALL updates |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-11 17:41:55 | Re: INSTALL updates |