Aaron Bannert wrote: >On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:18:03AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > >>I brought this up once before. I think it was Aaron that suggested an >>"optimization" which changed a pcalloc to a palloc. I noted that doing >>things like that are troublesome for long term maintenance. >> > >I brought it up once, but my proposed change was never committed. > >>Bam. Empirical evidence here. >> >>Changing pcalloc to palloc should only be done when we have specific >>information that it is *really* helpful. >> > >I agree that in general we probably don't want to go around replacing >these things everywhere, but in some cases (like inside a tight loop >in a filter that gets called many times during a single request) it may >make sense. But that's why we have two ways to allocate memory, right? >
The next time I have a chance to look at profiler data (probably in the next week), I'll check where the expensive apr_pcalloc calls are and post a summary. Most of the obvious calloc->alloc wins from past profiling efforts have been fixed already, but the code base has also changed a bit since then. --Brian
