Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1651995.1606931931@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
So ... one of the things that's been worrying me about this patch from day one is whether it would create a noticeable performance penalty for existing use-cases. I did a small amount of experimentation about that with the v35 patchset, and it didn't take long at all to find that this: --- cut --- create or replace function arraytest(n int) returns void as $$ declare a int[]; begin a := array[1, 1]; for i in 3..n loop a[i] := a[i-1] - a[i-2]; end loop; end; $$ language plpgsql stable; \timing on select arraytest(10000000); --- cut --- is about 15% slower with the patch than with HEAD. I'm not sure what an acceptable penalty might be, but 15% is certainly not it. I'm also not quite sure where the cost is going. It looks like 0001+0002 aren't doing much to the executor except introducing one level of subroutine call, which doesn't seem like it'd account for that. I don't think this can be considered RFC until the performance issue is addressed. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: