Re: Faster StrNCpy
От | mark@mark.mielke.cc |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060927232639.GA15401@mark.mielke.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Faster StrNCpy ("Strong, David" <david.strong@unisys.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Faster StrNCpy
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 07:08:05AM -0700, Strong, David wrote: > We sometimes see TupleDescInitEntry () taking high CPU times via > OProfile. This does include, amongst a lot of other code, a call to > namestrcpy () which in turn calls StrNCpy (). Perhaps this is not a > good candidate right now as a name string is only 64 bytes. Just wondering - are any of these cases where a memcpy() would work just as well? Or are you not sure that the source string is at least 64 bytes in length? memcpy(&target, &source, sizeof(target)); target[sizeof(target)-1] = '\0'; I imagine any extra checking causes processor stalls, or at least for the branch prediction to fill up? Straight copies might allow for maximum parallelism? If it's only 64 bytes, on processors such as Pentium or Athlon, that's 2 or 4 cache lines, and writes are always performed as cache lines. I haven't seen the code that you and Tom are looking at to tell whether it is safe to do this or not. Cheers, mark -- mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bindthem... http://mark.mielke.cc/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: