Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of intcolumns, very slow COPY FROM)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of intcolumns, very slow COPY FROM) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZzSV4p+HAwm42VcEcL=WQQ7su1g1yox7VhFvfJz2AFzw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of intcolumns, very slow COPY FROM) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of intcolumns, very slow COPY FROM)
Re: Faster str to int conversion (was Table with large number of intcolumns, very slow COPY FROM) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > FWIW, here's a rebased version of this patch. Could probably be polished > further. One might argue that we should do a bit more wide ranging > changes, to convert scanint8 and pg_atoi to be also unified. But it > might also just be worthwhile to apply without those, given the > performance benefit. Wouldn't hurt to do that one too, but might be OK to just do this much. Questions: 1. Why the error message changes? If there's a good reason, it should be done as a separate commit, or at least well-documented in the commit message. 2. Does the likely/unlikely stuff make a noticeable difference? 3. If this is a drop-in replacement for pg_atoi, why not just recode pg_atoi this way -- or have it call this -- and leave the callers unchanged? 4. Are we sure this is faster on all platforms, or could it work out the other way on, say, BSD? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: