On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a
> 30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -- numkeep=0
> numsnaps=10 becomes 49.8ns from 37.6ns. That seems a bit shocking.
> Maybe you can claim that these operations aren't exactly hot spots, and
> so the fact that we remain in the same power-of-ten is sufficient. Is
> that the argument?
That's right. The fast path is fast, and that's important. The slow path
becomes 30% slower, but that's acceptable.
- Heikki
