Re: Various performance questions - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: Various performance questions
Date
Msg-id 1067280005.463.48.camel@tokyo
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Various performance questions  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Various performance questions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 12:56, Greg Stark wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > Uh, what? Why would an int8 need to be "dynamically allocated
> > repeatedly"?
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm extrapolating from a comment Tom Lane made that
> profiling showed that the bulk of the cost in count() went to allocating
> int8s. He commented that this could be optimized by having count() and sum()
> bypass the regular api. I don't have the original message handy.

I'm still confused: int64 should be stack-allocated, AFAICS. Tom, do you
recall what the issue here is?

-Neil



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Very Poor Insert Performance
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Various performance questions