David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 16:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Interesting. I wonder if bms_next_member() could be made any quicker?
> I had a quick look earlier and the only thing I saw was maybe to do
> the first loop differently from subsequent ones. The "w &= mask;"
> does nothing useful once we're past the first bitmapword that the loop
> touches.
Good thought, but it would only help when we're actually iterating to
later words, which happens just 1 out of 64 times in the fully-
populated-bitmap case.
Still, I think it might be worth pursuing to make the sparse-bitmap
case faster.
regards, tom lane
