Re: tweaking MemSet() performance

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Would you please retest this.  I have attached my email showing a
> > simpler test that is less error-prone.
> 
> What did you consider less error-prone, exactly?
> 
> Neil's original test considered the case where both the value being
> set and the buffer length (second and third args of MemSet) are
> compile-time constants.  Your test used a compile-time-constant second
> arg and a variable third arg.  It's obvious from looking at the source
> of MemSet that this will make a difference in what an optimizing
> compiler can do.

It was less error-prone because you don't have to recompile for every
constant, though your idea that a non-constant length may effect the
optimizer is possible, though I assumed for >=64, the length would not
be significant to the optimizer.

Should we take it to 1024 as a switchover point?  I am low at 512, and
others are higher, so 1024 seems like a good average.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073