Thread: REVIEW: Optimizing box_penalty

I tried to review the "Optimizing box_penalty" patch:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=600

as posted here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4E088690.5080706@enterprisedb.com

The patch no longer applies to source code, due to other recent GiST
changes. Parts of it were modifying functions which no longer exist.
I picked out the bits which still seemed relevant, and a patch with
that is attached. The improvement in REINDEX time is now only about
0.25% on my machine at home, which is small enough that it could
easily be from code shifting around. (Or such shifts might be hiding
a larger actual savings.) In any event, this patch doesn't seem to
be justified as a performance patch, based on my benchmarks today.

On the other hand, this patch leaves the code a few lines shorter and
eliminates some unnecessary Datum wrapping, PG_FUNCTION_ARGS
parameters on a static function, and allows that function to be
called directly rather than using DirectFunctionCall2(). I find the
resulting code a little cleaner and easier to read. I would prefer
to see it applied on that basis, personally.

Since the author is a committer, and this is a pretty minor code
style patch at this point, I'll mark it "Ready for Committer" and
leave it to Heikki to decide what to do with it.

-Kevin

On 08.10.2011 21:51, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I tried to review the "Optimizing box_penalty" patch:

Thanks!

> On the other hand, this patch leaves the code a few lines shorter and
> eliminates some unnecessary Datum wrapping, PG_FUNCTION_ARGS
> parameters on a static function, and allows that function to be
> called directly rather than using DirectFunctionCall2().  I find the
> resulting code a little cleaner and easier to read.  I would prefer
> to see it applied on that basis, personally.

Agreed, committed.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com