On Saturday 20 November 2010 18:34:04 Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, while we're thinking about marginal improvements: instead of > constructing the string backwards and then reversing it in-place, > what about building it working backwards from the end of the buffer > and then memmove'ing it down to the start of the buffer? > > I haven't tested this but it seems likely to be roughly a wash > speed-wise. The reason I find the idea attractive is that it will > immediately expose any caller that is providing a buffer shorter > than the required length, whereas now such callers will appear to > work fine if they're only tested on small values. Tried that, the cost was measurable although not big (~3-5%)...
Greetings, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
